Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO
"Reddy, Joseph" <jreddy@ti.com> Fri, 25 May 2012 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <jreddy@ti.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 2A6EA21F87C5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ck3PsMU2MxDa for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB64021F8448 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dlelxv30.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by bear.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id q4PKuxth006999; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:57:00 -0500
Received: from DFLE70.ent.ti.com (dfle70.ent.ti.com [128.247.5.40]) by dlelxv30.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4PKuxMk009337; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:56:59 -0500
Received: from DLEE10.ent.ti.com ([fe80::843:a4aa:bf01:3f68]) by DFLE70.ent.ti.com ([fe80::db3:609a:aa62:e1ec%22]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:57:00 -0500
From: "Reddy, Joseph" <jreddy@ti.com>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
Thread-Topic: P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO
Thread-Index: Ac06uOwwX3Y4CbuVTFqlKGFRgCOm/g==
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 20:56:58 +0000
Message-ID: <2AA5AC69E924D149A8D63EB676AF87DB2CA34049@DLEE10.ent.ti.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.247.5.50]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 May 2012 20:57:01 -0000
Hi Mukul, See response below to your response on the PIO/RIO inclusion in P2P DIO messages. -Regards, Joseph -----Original Message----- [Joseph] Section 6.1: "...A P2P-DIO MAY carry one or more RIO and PIO options..." I am not sure how these options should be used by the DAG members. Later on, in 9.1, it says that "..the temporary DAG must not be used to route packets....". So what is the purpose of RIO and also PIO ? [Mukul] The RIO would advertize to the target(s) the origin's connectivity to the specified prefix. Regarding PIO, I would very much like to allow P2P mode DIOs to carry PIOs to propagate prefixes for address selfconfiguration (i.e. have A flag set). I think we could forbid setting the R flag to one in a PIO carried in a P2P mode DIOs. Regarding the L flag, I think we could allow a P2P mode DIO to carry a PIO with L flag set subject to the following rules in RFC 6550: <...> [Joseph] The RIO/PIO information is sent by the Origin to propagate its connectivity and prefix information. However, the route is established towards the Target. So I don’t understand why the Origin information is relevant ..
- Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO Reddy, Joseph
- Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO Reddy, Joseph
- Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: RIO/PIO in P2P-DIO Mukul Goyal