Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

[Added the draft name to the subject to benefit my filters. ;-) ]

Pascal:

Hi!

I asked the same question (about aodv-rpl replacing/obsoleting rfc6997)
when I did my review [1] — more than two years ago!  But sadly received no
real reply from the WG — so we moved ahead with the document as it is now.
Peter brought the question back in his IoT DIT review [2] earlier this
year, but again no discussion from the WG.

It is clear to see that aodv-rpl uses some of the technology from rfc6997
and, as I understand it, a deployment would never include both.  The
question then is valid and I would love to see more interest this time
around.

Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to formally
replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft).  We can deal with that if we
need to.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/
[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/

On October 6, 2021 at 2:29:30 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:

Dear all,

RPL AODV is close to completion, congrats to the authors!

Now, there’s the question of the MOP and 2 options, reuse the experimental
one for P2P RPL, or take another.

Right now, the draft takes 5 and P2P has 4 (
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop)

My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV, so AODV
should deprecate it.

I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do not expect
a mix of devices that would create confusion.

So would that be OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?

Note that we only have up to 6 to play with, and the multicast and anycast
supports are already on the cooking table.

Keep safe,

Pascal

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll