IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] capability vs. configuration

"Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com> Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <liz3@cisco.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 4113412004C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 00:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=VQC2psuC; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=kxfcB3Za
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 BU1g97KsKrNJ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2019 00:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAB611200B6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 00:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9827; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558941978; x=1560151578; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=s4DZBwbaooBDt/hahZduyDqvZk+q5LHwfbDuLwn6lkc=; b=VQC2psuCsywH0LYnsFsOr0GNNYhOlQBJFtA1dtfvXE3v4Yt90uHxbO1h z5PgrwUTG5ReH3elfO9TLOSvfOeVODenqPC0+yycjuACgT32g4rGhns+S 2ZJAzYdZDUiDNrff/cRpm++EiXr/07MPaC2FqNDB7ChlfZ3QxWKc0Zmy0 M=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:NShwfB3woHE1BX+EsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxGCt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8TgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVcqEGxbTJ//xZCt8F8NHBxdo
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B+AAAqkOtc/49dJa1aCh4BBgcGgVEJCwGBDi9QA2lVIAQLKAqECYNHA455SpRohFCBLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCMyM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUsCBBIRHQEBKw0PAgEIQgICAjAlAgQ1gwABgR1NAx0BApwTAoE4iF9xgS+CeQEBBYJHgjMYgg8JgTQBhGiBIIFYg3KCFoERJx+CTD6EGR6DFzKCJoExAYxahGOVaAYDAoINinyIGRuWSaJmAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOIFXcHoBc4FOgRh3g3CKU3KBKYpZgS8BgSABAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,518,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="568194551"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 May 2019 07:26:16 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (xch-aln-012.cisco.com [173.36.7.22]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4R7QGl1007926 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26:16 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (173.36.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 27 May 2019 02:26:15 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 27 May 2019 02:26:15 -0500
Received: from NAM05-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 27 May 2019 03:26:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=s4DZBwbaooBDt/hahZduyDqvZk+q5LHwfbDuLwn6lkc=; b=kxfcB3Za+joeFyRcRuWnd1mAIccH1Kl+FWNPgG295Im/ejpDyY1AdXpCV+B27h7ozfWJYXVJAjEKcy+NreNDJ5GYkOqLr6y/WxwgKfRo/lhSMzNexm2Zb7Tqvwv8M9vvOXySPbyXxgPGrXIyiz0qDwx2Ol7hm42aTYaEVhI33iU=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3784.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.239.10) by BYAPR11MB2726.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.227.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.18; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26:13 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3784.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d473:1da8:c5a2:9bbc]) by BYAPR11MB3784.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d473:1da8:c5a2:9bbc%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.021; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26:13 +0000
From: "Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] capability vs. configuration
Thread-Index: AQHVFDua42hZh9XuNUOlnMD+d9AwVaZ+a88WgACJJAD//5jLMIAAitIA
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26:13 +0000
Message-ID: <2EDCDA60-D27A-43B3-A7B2-02F8864DB75A@cisco.com>
References: <A587F9B0-9F1A-4307-9D3E-C261D6EF566A@cisco.com> <6E26B721-36DF-4B0D-8930-3F90179D557B@cisco.com> <87C818D7-A6D2-466D-9E74-3FBFCBD812F9@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB3565F5AC117253E18B035257D81D0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565F5AC117253E18B035257D81D0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=liz3@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [64.104.125.231]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4e64794a-d6c3-41c2-c4b4-08d6e274996e
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB2726;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2726:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2726CB2D73AB4AAFA2C9C77E8C1D0@BYAPR11MB2726.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0050CEFE70
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(189003)(199004)(102836004)(53936002)(36756003)(6916009)(2616005)(83716004)(476003)(486006)(316002)(14454004)(66066001)(6246003)(256004)(99286004)(14444005)(33656002)(81166006)(8936002)(6506007)(76176011)(81156014)(8676002)(2906002)(82746002)(3846002)(6512007)(6116002)(6306002)(54896002)(26005)(68736007)(25786009)(86362001)(229853002)(73956011)(478600001)(6486002)(6436002)(7736002)(5660300002)(11346002)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(66946007)(446003)(71190400001)(186003)(71200400001)(91956017)(76116006)(88722002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2726; H:BYAPR11MB3784.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: lM2eQPiBQwFkmgj/K3zk/jyVlO1+18ZfptWyoRVI1IonmVM6eR3bFJA46maNIHeK3V9VN64O1fJZ9PsA9I0gW0uhNoLKIakhBmtpprbDWH4pOol7uSm/W0YvzcOn23/GqzRsoYC01UYEaAzpi3DUakY3cLIGlsTZuh/aqJQeQltsO+ceZPS0PsKirKcAVBPjLWQcOJ7WiVl2NNSddzLYsPaHjmWdhN67xB/vImIImg2borfqBI5kHBfTYLnmXfpi3C3zYjbKG9+oM6G39uI6W6S6kyD38+O70M4ewiNeARAqwnez/e6AsKWTNV5xaruCC87hx1hlidw9Fg7sTBV9ZDHD5Fg4+56haPPFMNjE0IbRcXi/igcgYqxuo+G4FBl5brHJgD4mFSjgF9FqpGFgHgDLkMjCHnWawKY5ij1zVxI=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2EDCDA60D27A43B3A7B202F8864DB75Aciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4e64794a-d6c3-41c2-c4b4-08d6e274996e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 May 2019 07:26:13.5662 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: liz3@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2726
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.22, xch-aln-012.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/PgYGfX8TRnKp5_ixlFYInN80Mqs>
Subject: Re: [Roll] capability vs. configuration
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26:21 -0000

Hello Pascal:

In order to decide whether  it can safely set the config flags, it would be good that the root knows about the node capabilities such as route projection, RFC 8138 compression and option x23 for RPI. So I thought that the node could expose that capability using mop-ext and we add the bits in the draft already.

[RJ] So the root is expected to set the T-flag after learning the nodes capabilities after the initial DIO-DAO round .. is this right? i.e. once the root learns that all nodes are 8138 capable then it sets the T-flag in the subsequent DIO (possibly after DTSN increment)? What happens if a node springs up later and announces that it does not support 8138 after the T-flag was turned on by the root ?

[Li] How to identify the initial DIO-DAO round is also a problem to deal with. Because the root doesn’t know the scalability/max hop/form time of each PAN.
One propose is adding scalability/form time as capability of root, root can detect initial DIO-DAO and then announces 8138 or option x23 to nodes.

<PT>The idea is that the admin decides at some point to do the switch, after the network has been up and operational, nodes have ben upgraded if needed, etc. Eventually all nodes are ready, the flags confirm that, and the admin presses the button. Over the next minutes, hours or days, the network will convert while never stopping, at least that is the goal of the draft. We could have a section on applicability, if you are willing to write it, Li?

[Li] Agree with you. I’ll write up the section about applicability.


Best regards,
Li

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email