Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 00:21 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 38295120033 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:21:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 pkK7v2AfAYhC for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 930F112006E for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id i23so321108lfo.7 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:21:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+GSlE2cWLSsArLFz94b1xqWaysPmBCxprFj9SSRSd+s=; b=V524RZzrcqfU00YYqECqzrdMb2TV6Ocm3amPcnF5zm2e6gbWUc+DHdpg6SrkukAy4p KCJXn42TcMOTQdBFhyB5qlXp/SYLKbagYDW6jiAg4Bx3OCMoCepxyh3VafbWVSDm5PSj 8d5hkSY7FJZp156mGlUQxiZnrnB9+Ji8e5TPp+Oi2ZUwTm6oXRbz7cWGccgzIUefjSx2 Ivi0e3dkmbStenz+gOxHOVcQXgzCNe7aFz6WykW7TWMCIw8/h0x/lMUoc9OMBviI3Yx4 H5XBTNxiIn9QFN8T6rcoNvj/vT+z3kejX3VDjSL5JTEX9F0NR6DVUdh7kSdr8Groby5H SRWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=+GSlE2cWLSsArLFz94b1xqWaysPmBCxprFj9SSRSd+s=; b=XDu76r90/EZTSQCEnuvZoaAeXDri+agbU0+QHRzcIWFnL5lBoKpMeh36zp5cTkjQmm 7iGYwUBrRhn1Mq7/K/+dM+VQjFgwNbR2ZjSpDk0bPsNPIDDCos27DORNvVit510TUuj2 Wn0DtsmUYBnYiFRnmJsluwmI0OA+ROevqOeqoyt20IPGQIox57JXLludJGCX7XxoBjVu FzrcgApc6AIdKwz/Y6hvy2HIQS9Z7RkQHGaTKbuw8AdUXmuSpQd+eAAjzjF+w+TQOmCf w9bxGyCVpI79/551QBbPilkH9JWE1ZiOa2u33HGS10CgJ7h4BCwPc2njHHk6rNrjev7P 9JeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUeu9KdL4eIsXtr5iLL1/CIPzdVGn6P3ejxXe6Upbl4WxdftG8B /7HE06MPfAdX+csg1vBF056hXcHmhJvv0Mx+sP1u5R7z
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxpercVROjbZruK0U8I4Bd+8IgLpFnP6m68EatEjM8aJTPWapQjLggymyYfoOxlVi0bdgj7IzTHkru35pbgPCk=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:43a7:: with SMTP id t7mr140867lfl.125.1576628481207; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:21:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO0Djp1K18CGXv+YC9H4qgCgyH=fkon4ihFAUmgfKwdYQy38dQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB35657EDC8F8FBF9EB5359A57D85B0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <25979.1576604888@localhost> <MN2PR11MB356572131554810FF88AC01ED8500@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB356572131554810FF88AC01ED8500@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:21:10 +0800
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp0XEM+h366FhOA5BtCGaa+R=aLz2CJyUSysPKMrJG9gnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/PjpqlOA3NTS2yRsIrIdRmEEv-JU>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
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: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:21:26 -0000

> >
> > You mean that we could change the ND status to 6-bits in the 6lo WG?
> > (I would have parsed ND status as being someing 6man takes care of)
>
> Yes, or mandate that the 64 first Status values are reserved for stuff that could be carried in RPL
>

[RJ] Wondering how such a mandate would work. IF we do it this way,
future extensions to ND ARO status need to consider whether they are
applicable to RPL and define accordingly. This implies familiarity in
6lo/6MAN with RPL.

I prefer the other approach where we restrict the ND ARO status to
64bits itself. Anyways using 128 bits in the future seems far-fetched
(as indicated by Pascal before). But to limit ND ARO status to 64bits
we need to convince the 6lo/6MAN group that "because of RPL" we need
to reduce the size. I am not sure if this is easy to digest!