Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5

Cenk Gündogan <cnkgndgn@gmail.com> Thu, 07 July 2016 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <cnkgndgn@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 B98A312D1AF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 UZODdknuoTEI for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 9C07412D0F4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z126so138183131wme.0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LH7uc73KlqfQLouEhGjUy0HhdCEmr42LvXpYe3UQ7Ss=; b=qqAKxa27jAhMB1gg4aBo4hUQhEbArVTopcSk49q8oPl8GI1UmKf8Q2zg26nJ0tb/Ah 84y1SJAJkm1ezx/Uhph2cQoZHPZuMkJgEAHULoIU5bAsZi2lRPTHucZp8tRshQJBsISB hyZxYiH5vE69nUyJw/WGays7fbQl7vaQfQLBZo1sZRxexUm5ax8HtZWp7/XEssnKGj4c m0KAH+Lcvba8OtVqgJBuNfaYw87edaErRE6WjWjJSP7s/jDkDGbfVGZZyNRIpRWSD44E /9nZU3PeyunzqOKdpF493zjt+6nJD0OwUPisrmv5XOxtD+zBldz0Z3nns78XowuAuOl5 SWKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LH7uc73KlqfQLouEhGjUy0HhdCEmr42LvXpYe3UQ7Ss=; b=kLPxfoDe+h8snJbWGcvfMMffzU1ubHdgtTMc3rf7LjrcZrH9kruUZQCvnw74hGQJdi VyZK4EzFwwuqJ4Ys4CjIYwx5b/HwxHzlkKyuRsye4kzLx2yLN6pE2B7Kifz5wPbXyXMO OA12/ZvJ1IJeetPrFYH7rmtwE+ozDjwqGodANEWKBC0vz2l3WLTW2TBwc4iTcj7TLQ3A c6p3D7RUZK77Z2hcnIeKZzIz4odYNy8lkhHmRpGb1seNlgoCZkYWkynXWVs+hqRZ6NRd 35+r1AES2gMOIx2obQ/zXPITz8ySnjydaG2KfBdyw1rKcCWqeZTePTlCj5DBh/aHZ3Ar n9DQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIYbuKabK+tqgYSOmLhIU8uyucX+vs6MCTey4lHC0Yr2qW8KJ+omUKcE/E9PTJZqw==
X-Received: by 10.28.228.69 with SMTP id b66mr24099043wmh.25.1467878853849; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.26.176.176] ([192.26.176.176]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id l1sm2683523wjy.17.2016.07.07.01.07.30 for <roll@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 01:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: roll@ietf.org
References: <b9e569f12a008245ef824e340f510dff@xs4all.nl>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cenk_G=c3=bcndogan?= <cnkgndgn@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8bd985a5-ded0-b5f3-8750-e0fb24c852ef@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:07:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b9e569f12a008245ef824e340f510dff@xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Qr_fOwDqN4uEJ84P_DdDg--I2Wo>
Subject: Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 08:07:38 -0000

Hello Peter,

 > Other question: how does the last 6LR know that the next node is a 
not_Raf?

I would try to answer this question in the following way:

I expect routes that were found _not_ with RPL, but e.g. configured
manually or through any other mechanism to be marked somehow differently
than routes that were accumulated with DAOs.
How to mark routes "differently" seems to be implementation specific.
(but this information would be used to fill in the `E` flag of Transit 
Options
in DAOs later).

So, if a rpl router forwards a packet downwards (storing-mode), it somehow
needs to know whether the (dst;next-hop) pair in a forwarding table
is rpl-born or not. If it is not rpl-born, then the IPIP header
containing the RPI must be removed before continuing the forwarding process,
otherwise the IPIP+RPI is re-added and targeted to the next-hop.

You probably noticed that I used many "somehows" and generalized a lot 
in the text above,
but this process looks very blurry to me.
Any RPL veterans available to make things clearer?

Cenk

On 07/06/2016 02:14 PM, peter van der Stok wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
> Below my review of the document.
>
> Although the subject is tedious, the draft looks important to me to 
> assure inter-operability between implementations
>
> This version was much more readable than the first one. So, I mostly 
> signal nits and typos.
> It is important that someone with more implementation experience also 
> carefully reviews the document to signal missing text.
>
> Below my comments,
>
> Peter
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________________ 
>
>
> Review of RPLinfo version 05.
> Intro, last line, change to: “… type 3 {RFC6554], an efficient 
> IP-in-IP technique, and use cases …”.
> Section 3, Figure 1 is not referred to in the text.
> Page 5: Reorder phrases: first the phrase “In the figure 2,…” followed 
> by the phrase “The numbers …”
> Page 5, line 3: leaf -> leafs
> Page 5, line 7: “is mentioned as well as” -> “is often named”
> Page 6, figure 3 is not referred to.
> Page 7, phrase 2, “This is a fundamental” -> “A fundamental”
> Page 8, line 8,”to add to remove” -> “to add or remove”
> Page 8, line 22, “In tables” -> “In table 1”
> Page 8, line 25, complete -> extensive
> Section 5, phrase 1 change to: “In storing mode (fully stateful), the 
> sender cannot determine whether the destination is RPL-capable and 
> thus ….”
> Section 5, line 9, indicates when (when to be added)
> Page 9, last line; don’t understand: “and are the RPL root node.”
> Page 10, line 6: remove: “in order to be able to”
> Section 5.2, line 3, insert -> inserts; send ->sends
> Section 5.3 and section 5.2: If the 6LBR does not know whether 
> destination is Raf or not_Raf in section 5.3, then this is also the 
> case in section 5.2. Question why is the IPv6-in-IPv6 header not also 
> used in section 5.2. The problem for the 6LBR is the same.
> The text in section 5.3 seems to suggest that at each 6LR the 
> IPv6-in-IPv6 is removed and then re-added again. I would expect the 
> row re-added headers be filled in under 6LR.
> Other question: how does the last 6LR know that the next node is a 
> not_Raf?
> Section 5.4: IP-in-IP is removed and re-added in 6LRs? This also 
> refers to the following sections 5.x
> Section 5.8 and section 5.6; same question as for section 5.3 and 
> section 5.2.
> Section 5.9, line 11, sending 6LN to (“6LN to” added)
> Section 5.10, line 4, remove “sends”
> Page 16, “Alternatively, …. Compress.” I miss a lot of context to 
> understand this paragraph.
> Section 5.11, line 5, addresses -> addressed
> Section 5.11, line 6, subject of “must send” misses.
> Section 5.12, The phrase “The IP-in-IP header must be addressed on a 
> hop-by-hop basis” suggests that the header is removed and re-inserted 
> at every hop. Nevertheless, that is not mentioned in the accompanying 
> table. This is the same question I have for earlier sections 5.x.
> Section 6.1, In the table, why does the 6LBR add RPI? 6LBR is the 
> destination!
> Section 6.2, “the traffic originates with an RPL aware node”. What do 
> you mean? 6LBR is RPL aware? The destination is known to 6LBR because 
> destination is RPL aware? Or something else?
> Section 6.3, My interpretation: In 6LBR the RH3 is added and modified 
> in each consecutive 6LR until it is fully consumed and removed in the 
> last 6LR.
> Section 6.3, You cite several alternatives. I suggest to only mention 
> the solution without RPI.
> Section 6.5, line 3, remoted -> removed
> Identical to storing mode case (please mention section).
> Section 6.6 same remark about RPI as section 6.3
> Sections 6.7 – 6.12, Here you use 6LN for not-RPL aware node, while in 
> earlier section 6.x you use IPv6 node. Why?
> Section 7.1, line 6, stiaution -> approach
> Section 7.1, line 10; what is a “single code path”?
> Section 7.2, line 1, This -> In
> Section 7.2 line 3, all DODAG nodes, (added DODAG)
> Section 7.2, line 12, “intermediate 6LN nodes” should be “intermediate 
> IPv6 nodes”? If not, I don’t understand the phrase.
> Section 7.2, line 20, there are -> there is
>
>