[Roll] No path DAO treated as new

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD33129B80 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:00:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cTP1PyKZWerH for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F7FD129588 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id j15so5244516oih.2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YDAA1gLzC5mVj4ZVtmG1hx+3As58RuCyPMr69RHde4Y=; b=HdqUYw2n1b5Tlnr18611xaeHoHYdlacBiGDntfevcBWYOpVuudl0faH6pKt0vyOwQw EXKLEe288HOfg4d3hHufGReoQaEj3azVr7AaqsUbWFBbzC5UxpVN8TLU/nGRU37oGEOn 3Gk5R5FD2QkpG1ruIZSjGVbRHRJb7J7ZUTlY6vw0REG2ptnyC/CahABIIF6hzbofITpa Yf02KWa/s1ohizL46P7lY8K4WcER99RhTxpdczPraTwXOxxXGQ/tm7Q30Nx8tW52Er5O CPwllQAunbPt3Hs48S32Oo6ZpIG0KYU/C5zc2fZscl9qCVnY/KWLl5Td7bo3JFXiC6jW /k3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=YDAA1gLzC5mVj4ZVtmG1hx+3As58RuCyPMr69RHde4Y=; b=rE2XFLcLaraYjLO2L0Y3zPaJOc1jbqOniuOURiNtBCz3Gu9bPIcmavANeeVxzyHMKJ QW1kklqpCBA2cmc4yrOXvFoDKrhHSPr+CwXUSeufkwRjw6ZorSkriHN9e31UX+qy1DqF lGuti60sHpG/VB6Br/Iw1Oqiy/rOW97SB/aiHjwqw3bku2YXmbKoZSMWh7Xi5i/eOhog E8sanFBdVCZ6fLIcjIIrxi5e9Q6lW9U3KDs8QwhXgK2ygymWI5GQapWmNPGg4C+RzABF CrymTYOP8dNajS5GtGEKRkM0mFawETR9dw32s9fmVl61FHaPoum5u79XYlyblpC2ppir sSRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLuVYmMu+2hnJ/ajkoqhahMMSGYpxz9aHdDf4uA+tj2u3TqDrF7jnEq5NhKHRHDYTWsx56xuQ0+qkeLfw==
X-Received: by 10.202.190.136 with SMTP id o130mr6124868oif.14.1486098028718; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:00:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.52.27 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.74.52.27 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:00:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp02NVSzKgdVV-rR1hrQ5UEzhVDWMjpaPKX89qFEVHCQVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO0Djp373Auuc_yeiT2R22XM7A1zM6xAVsCOv2e=9DED8OdLtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO0Djp1AM6d7Y3s1UugZ+2CRWu4HdzD46k7bkU0mZNY60oiyhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO0Djp1QyPzn8PY8NMLkK7Yms-jqrJRuNWviy-GQH4zhoDE3zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO0Djp02NVSzKgdVV-rR1hrQ5UEzhVDWMjpaPKX89qFEVHCQVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 13:00:28 +0800
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp2gjFyMJ_tyVesQfJySLK6ODREA==UV_B2=3a0mykgO=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: roll@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113db6001a701005479929ac"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/PIuRU--HDotMmHbue5IJH6pVr7Y>
Subject: [Roll] No path DAO treated as new
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 05:00:31 -0000

Hello All,

Section 9.2.2. of RFC6550 says that a No-Path DAO message should always be
processed as a "new" message (i.e. igoring the PathSequence value related
to the target) ...
I have problem with a scenario where if a node sends NPDAO (to old path)
and DAO to the new path for the same target ... and if for some reason
NPDAO reaches after the DAO to the common parent then it will clear the
routes because NPDAO is alway processed as "new" message.
Consider an eg network,
    A
    |
    B
   / \
  /   \
 C     D
  :   /
   : /
    E
Node E switches from C to D, E sends an NPDAO to C, and regular DAO to D.
If B receives NPDAO after DAO, then won't it result in incorrect
invalidation of routes. My point is, the NPDAO processing should also have
honored the PathSequence value before processing. But the spec text clearly
and specifically talks about treating NPDAOs as "new".
Any thoughts on why special treatment for NPDAO was considered?

Thanks,
Rahul