[Roll] rpl routing and linux-kernel

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 July 2018 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8381130EB0 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDX9BH7DB4fW for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (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 B382A130EC1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 125-v6so922544vke.11 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FdKJt9c8sQdjny9uG9Y4hn4pecZ+cdiNh6BRstahycw=; b=YLs5c4gXkB0oP1s8Iueiz512WOTkUn0yApbTDvyKaUh4GHyARInVfuZWXh85uRHETI 5Q9bWRbVdLPZMXTMtcVGN69Nap/GrRpannNAFwlHOS8Ke4aEDAAx5uOLQStATtmHEVKR NA90/uIysIX8S7pZ39hKa5KVAllvG/DyMVko2XJSNS6QCCvmcaiQAiq0xZeCDpbremwX aetgDBecvTkjZ8E+wObEuqZwcG/Bh+oiLU1hI4Cf3biKGYGWTLf8r6ydZ0/5MLAJFRC9 Rou8IsEoiyU/frXX7RzHv6EQdAMLnAStT8ijJpIN9zKHi8lyYJgnxSuGQqQ9IHGFJno3 VF9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=FdKJt9c8sQdjny9uG9Y4hn4pecZ+cdiNh6BRstahycw=; b=kt5QJ94JKr2it3CrQ09CPfAlAwaKqKQFDn/rrCTk6/YGe5qGeQDCnzIaboB2uEu1Fa SQBFV6DYNg6riHv7aTDVIha4FbWkXEkTGFryK5Gcy2WBVf2GRudGJBlWXVnt0tCZJj3B hauaoJ7mmTS7dfJ9aug+phxqwqN0tXX6Lrgk9PKkD+ielUgKIR0LWDI583aYvCUXkQpJ yAOs4cU5M9eAsnk35swXkZTIBLx/QCgkvbcf5VVg5b+kFPIJ64P5aJNIUWCoRwMnHoDb lxhonFam1Sz3qqTyW7+OkUTAK9/cqU208CRYToo3NU+bAcjVJjWzIxkBr/Zy46twWjwt 6CbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEws7mKXZDav02Z5bI61FfZrIrxacOEVDhweN6uZbH1gXyGUwRQ x4hNbf87nqVuGTl3ipl+0w+tJlbAsBmEiJNYAqtbiA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfWvpwkLRfhHb2scuQ3JhOkl3CRXO8U+4DJLeSRhkBTup2EOd+LUvX/e+asbw6TmZaBba6ZQuHgeD4Dae3R9yM=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:4049:: with SMTP id n70-v6mr1345383vka.140.1531845623101; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:40:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp16_WUrKkbY-UQGdjLhO2gYitHQo=7iw4cn+fC_am5DdA@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/Q3VlbVANdI99lqP2GCfKuWcnZpI>
Subject: [Roll] rpl routing and linux-kernel
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:40:27 -0000

Hello ROLL,

While trying to integrate RPL with linux kernel and we had certain
design choices. In that context I have some specific questions,
especially towards linux-kernel integration and not towards RPL
protocol implementation itself. Assuming RPL implementation will be in
userspace, questions are:

1. We can add/del routes using rtnetlink interfaces ... this can be
used for the routes learnt by RPL as well ... But RPL needs to
maintain some additional per-route information on the 6LBR ... To be
very specific, we need to store parent information in context to every
route. Is it possible to do it with rtnetlink? I didn't find an option
to do that. If it ain't possible then what could be an alt approach?

2. RPL requires that certain extended ipv6 options be added in data
flows .. What is the best way to do this? It is possible to do this
with netfilter+libnfq but i m not sure whether this is the best

If there is anyone who tried this before, it would be great to have a
discussion in person while we are in IETF102. Please let know if you
are available for discussion.