IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] multicast in unaware-leaves

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 10 July 2019 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 BA0581200DB; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 23:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=aoqzwjUh; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=OQJXsOVH
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 4Qxb3TrE3SwZ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 23:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16F96120091; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 23:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15321; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562739157; x=1563948757; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6S3mc0+fuiKV8ftaOJ9PlFz2N/PerRdCxOEg7M8rA78=; b=aoqzwjUhL7jpwonQb1GXTCVZK3Df64qlErfTCBNQVYwKkGjNLmyOfHr/ nJ6ra+BT/oI2RdC09+NPBZIJNhgxxi1VUSU5JjgMlBVHHxmu/Wto4VarF UEVRLRBeCh6NtZhwPqwDS2tuk1YUWX5lCPz51ijFDKnWt6oYQtPPbKzge s=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:M81npx33Pgc5JAtjsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKGt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSwdDjMwXmwI6B8vQEVH7MfTndTASF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BvBQCtgCVd/4YNJK1mHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBZ4EVL1ADalUgBAsUFAqEEoNHA45NlU+EVIFCgRADVAkBAQEMAQEjCgIBAYRAAheCLiM4EwEDAQEEAQECAQVthTwMhUsCBBIRChMBATcBDwIBCD8DAgICMBQRAgQOBSKDAAGBHU0DHQECAQuiYQKBOIhgcYEygnkBAQWFBhiCEgMGgTSLXxeBQD+BOB+CTD6CYQEBA4FGRYJdMoImjnCEfYhpjRVtCQKCGYZXjS8bgiyHIY4zlHGPfQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBZyGBWHAVZQGCQYJBg3GFFIU/coEpjQkBgSABAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,473,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="292989764"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 10 Jul 2019 06:12:35 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com [173.36.7.26]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x6A6CZfe001904 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:12:35 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:12:34 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 01:12:33 -0500
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 02:12:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=6S3mc0+fuiKV8ftaOJ9PlFz2N/PerRdCxOEg7M8rA78=; b=OQJXsOVHtO2T0GMMTz4L9IvWV7pAY9tdz5sKMOZihLrm+h/7//I5IRBMoG1CgwKRAN1Uoqed9v1/OvK/Fsfw3OT2f3oNaSgUN4jLE1jxCDKkSW5DM9KItahZUSxxzuSUen1AwOSaWOJbGDERMRoG7ZcPssSV5mrtHdV+w7XRIk0=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB3646.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.253.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.18; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:12:32 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ce9:1582:146c:c50a]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ce9:1582:146c:c50a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2052.020; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:12:32 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: multicast in unaware-leaves
Thread-Index: AQHVNjNXlfxFW3XNtU+NsE/nsIg/8abCDQ3AgAGCq4D//9DMDA==
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:12:32 +0000
Message-ID: <0F7459D7-ADC1-4ADB-BA65-29000742E7F1@cisco.com>
References: <3A0F19AC-493B-4A1F-8E53-5CCB310D8B0C@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB3565CFE831041ED5FFFEE6C9D8F10@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <198E1F7E-8A3F-4AB8-ABB4-F673B8801E6D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <198E1F7E-8A3F-4AB8-ABB4-F673B8801E6D@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [91.69.164.91]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a9ae772f-d88b-4c46-19ad-08d704fd983f
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3646;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3646:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3646D05283EEECD52D991601D8F00@MN2PR11MB3646.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0094E3478A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(54906003)(256004)(33656002)(14444005)(25786009)(37006003)(71200400001)(71190400001)(6486002)(6306002)(229853002)(66574012)(6436002)(606006)(68736007)(450100002)(486006)(2616005)(86362001)(478600001)(316002)(4326008)(66066001)(36756003)(11346002)(446003)(966005)(790700001)(6636002)(6862004)(76116006)(6246003)(186003)(236005)(3480700005)(7736002)(81156014)(5660300002)(14454004)(53936002)(81166006)(8936002)(64756008)(54896002)(6512007)(76176011)(8676002)(66446008)(66556008)(476003)(26005)(66946007)(3846002)(6116002)(91956017)(66476007)(6506007)(99286004)(102836004)(2906002)(244885003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3646; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: LI2ElWA9jWmDuyX3mvSq4t2eD7TWnPtNV0YoHPLN5YWuPqSDH+tB5ECdX63sYrD5WT0vbL8lNLOLYq827IzaK1v0VprkE05ziAZO1zIeI74rLN00qJt/04i5QirEJNVnyzm2zoTz3ga5kXFP8oxVeJAuunNfzxuzbLoaiv1s7yW6ZlgdiNJvgYnWujv7lLn+0InVG4NkCoER5akrMKibM4t2N0uHZSNkWx2WPKUhVuShng1ygLhtv2NRYfB/iGP6YNi6TP/M+K58p2ZJjdaN0oQQtUmpLDNdzENNnFszp3iKYm4qp/4U9DvneEs/TD1yhVHfviORP54HtLBxNPm5N2FgQewDhSNhBvJzOdmdEIUzGonQkQRWptSIA75EzhBvzMgfZp7NZI826y3wEKHGsM1d+8IG17HZI86o/J+6SiE=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0F7459D7ADC14ADBBA6529000742E7F1ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a9ae772f-d88b-4c46-19ad-08d704fd983f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 Jul 2019 06:12:32.1914 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pthubert@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3646
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.26, xch-aln-016.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/SQ77MvmkAKbKKor9F-kFD_RZajI>
Subject: Re: [Roll] multicast in unaware-leaves
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:12:41 -0000

I see your point Li.

1) the HbH option cannot be ignored because of the first bits
2) a MPL unaware leaf will receive the packet but drop it due to the HbH


If we want to serve those guys we need to either
A) use a new value for the option
B) encapsulate IP in IP and each router that has unaware leaves broadcasts a decapsulated packet to its leaves
C) add a capability bit with the registration

I agree it is an important use case and I’m happy to have this discussion in Montreal.

All the best,

Pascal

Le 10 juil. 2019 à 03:48, Li Zhao (liz3) <liz3@cisco.com<mailto:liz3@cisco.com>> a écrit :

Thanks Pascal. Please find my comment inline.


Ø  RUL should not be a MPL forwarder
Though it has dependencies on them, this spec does not mandate anything on RULs, it is only on routers.  So we could say that the spec does not expect the RUL to understand MPL and to forward it. Now if it does, it does not hurt does it?
[Li]: Agree with you. The spec does not mandate anything. It only need to cover MPL cases.


Ø  MPL Hop-by-Hop Header can be ignored when not understood

MPL option type cannot be ignored. It is 6D and the first two bits indicate that the IPv6 node must discard the packet if it doesn't recognize the option type. This is why https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo changes the RPL option from x63 to x23. So the HbH must be encapsulated and removed.



Ø  6LR might decapsulate MPL’s IP-in-IP packet and forward to RUL

Yes, no choice there I guess.
[Li]: Does 6LR need to know 6LN’s capability of MPL? If not, it doesn’t know whether to decapsulate HbH.
        Consider one case that 6LN supports MPL but 6LR decapsulates HbH. 6LN will lost all capability of MPL, for example, data retransmit.


Best regards,
Li

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email