Re: [Roll] Hosts part of the RPL instance? Re: definition of "RPL Domain"

There case where you want to be a bit more specific.

The following phrases should be unambiguous by now:
- RPL routing domain
- RPL control/data traffic

Can we move on now?

--
Jonathan Hui

On Nov 16, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:

> My 2cts on the various terminology discussions:
> 
> - An "RPL host" seems contradictory to me. Either it is a host, in which case it does not know anything about RPL, or it is an RPL router (leaf node or not, it still remains a router). We should allow for hosts (or be prepared to fight with the IAB for the next years why we think that we should break the IP architecture).
> 
> - A question that comes to my mind: Is it specified anywhere how to add the RPL IP headers for the traffic direction to a data packet from a host received by an RPL router?
> 
> - "RPL domain"; We should just stick to official terminology, i.e, "Routing Domain" in this case. I think it has been specified in RFC1136.
> 
> - RPL traffic: I don't like the term. I would stick to either control traffic or data traffic. Everyone understands these terms. No need to invent new terms.
> 
> Regards
> Ulrich
> 
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:38, Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I guess the desired behavior would be:
>> 
>> A host sends out a message to its RPL router. The router adds RPL SRH or RPL option to the IPv6 header and forwards the message further. No need for IP-in-IP tunneling. Any error message comes back to the router and the router handles the message. The host just sends and receives messages.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
>> To: "Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net>
>> Cc: roll@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:29:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] definition of "RPL Domain"
>> 
>> Hi Don
>> 
>> I dont want hosts to know about RPL. I just want the RPL routers to consider the hosts as part of the RPL instance so that the RPL router does not have to do IP-in-IP tunneling to forward packets generated by a host.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net>
>> To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>, "Sébastien Dawans" <sebastien.dawans@cetic.be>
>> Cc: roll@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:22:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] definition of "RPL Domain"
>> 
>> Hi Mukul,
>> 
>> I guess my view on this is the opposite of yours.  I would like to see
>> host-only devices not need to know anything about RPL.  Here is why:
>> 1)  Code savings.   Removing RPL from these host only devices would allow
>> for deployment on smaller footprint devices
>> 2)  Battery operated devices.   Some host only devices are deployed on
>> non-mains powered devices.  It would be nice for these devices to not have
>> to listen for any RPL control messages yet still support transmission into
>> a RPL routing domain.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/16/11 10:07 AM, "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Sebastien
>>> 
>>> First, I would like to clarify that the need to define "RPL domain" arose
>>> because draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option and draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header
>>> were using the term. Now, these drafts use the term "RPL instance" and
>>> hence there is no real need to define the term "RPL domain" any more. I
>>> will change draft-ietf-roll-p2p-measurement so that all references to
>>> "RPL domain" are changed to "RPL Instance".
>>> 
>>> Now returning to the question whether hosts should be considered part of
>>> the RPL Instance, the benefit of doing so is that there is no need to use
>>> IP-in-IP tunneling when a host sends out some data. If a host is not
>>> considered part of the RPL Instance, its default RPL router is obliged to
>>> use IP-in-IP tunneling to forward the packet further. IP-in-IP tunneling
>>> means an extra IPv6 header and thus less space for payload if you want to
>>> avoid fragmentation. Also, if the packet is traveling along a DAG, the
>>> encapsulation/decapsulation needs to be done at every hop, which sounds
>>> fairly heavy duty processing to me.
>>> 
>>> So, I would like to explore if there is a way we could consider hosts to
>>> be a part of the RPL Instance.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Mukul
>>> 
>>>> On what ground would you assume that a non-RPL aware host connected to a
>>>> RPL-router (in this case I would call it a border router) is in a/the
>>>> RPL Domain?
>>> 
>>>> From what I've seen in the drafts, the term "RPL Domain"'s primary
>>>> purpose it to differentiate the limits of "RPL-aware" nodes for IP
>>>> traffic that needs to transit to or from a set of RPL-aware hosts (for
>>>> example, to define where to add/remove the RPL IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option if
>>>> used).
>>> 
>>>> To me, this interpretation of RPL Domain is thus only useful in a local
>>>> context and not to meant to designate one or more bounded set of nodes.
>>>> That's the role of DODAGs and Instances.
>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>>> Sébastien Dawans
>>> 
>>> On 11/16/2011 02:20 PM, Mukul Goyal wrote:
>>>> So, the revised doubts are as follows:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. It is clear that RPL routers are within an RPL domain but what about
>>>> the RPL-unaware IPv6 hosts attached to an RPL router? I would imagine
>>>> that such hosts are also within an RPL domain.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Is an RPL domain same as an RPL instance? Or is an RPL domain a set
>>>> of RPL instances in the LLN? Can multiple RPL domains exist within an
>>>> LLN? Or is it that an RPL domain is same as an LLN using RPL as a
>>>> routing protocol?
>>>> 
>>>> THanks
>>>> Mukul
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Mukul Goyal"<mukul@uwm.edu>
>>>> To: "Thomas Heide Clausen"<thomas@thomasclausen.org>
>>>> Cc: "roll"<roll@ietf.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:15:59 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] definition of "RPL Domain"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Now that we are at it: what is an RPL host? Or rather, why is this
>>>>> even a conceivable thing to define? Afaik, RPL is a routing protocol,
>>>>> and as such should concern only routers - not hosts?
>>>>> 
>>>> My bad. By RPL host, I actually meant an RPL leaf node. I think this
>>>> term "RPL host" was in use at one point in time but I cant find a
>>>> reference to it in current spec.
>>>> 
>>>> THanks
>>>> Mukul
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Thomas Heide Clausen"<thomas@thomasclausen.org>
>>>> To: "Mukul Goyal"<mukul@uwm.edu>
>>>> Cc: "JP Vasseur"<jpv@cisco.com>, "roll"<roll@ietf.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:25:31 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] definition of "RPL Domain"
>>>> 
>>>> Now that we are at it: what is an RPL host? Or rather, why is this even
>>>> a conceivable thing to define? Afaik, RPL is a routing protocol, and as
>>>> such should concern only routers - not hosts?
>>>> 
>>>> I worry if this is inventing an entire ecosystem which "pretends to be
>>>> just like the Internet, except it is not", as it needs entirely new
>>>> stacks, protocols, translators/gateways everywhere, and with no real
>>>> traces of IP as we know it remaining?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll