Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 25 February 2016 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6135C1AD069 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 06:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 UmZxCpYGzpkt for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 06:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B21DB1AD062 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 06:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23D92009E for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:42:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D11C6374E for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:41:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <d88ab77865404790b206a61381099b4d@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <068.083c7610ff2ac4904b0f3d42985de0e5@trac.tools.ietf.org> <083.ab1b0b92eb7919631cac4e82fc5f8d77@trac.tools.ietf.org> <9111.1456113115@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d88ab77865404790b206a61381099b4d@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:41:19 -0500
Message-ID: <19270.1456411279@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/SkRmuv_BG3Vj3LI95E_h2QNuV78>
Subject: Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 25 Feb 2016 14:41:23 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > The change Nb2 reverses a decision that makes sure that if a packet
    > with an HbH header / RPI escapes the RPL domain, it is immediately
    > discarded. This impact has to be weighted.

It would only be discarded if the receiving machine does not speak RPL/RPI.
If by chance, it does understand that header, then would not discard it by
2460 rule.  It could be configured to drop packets with RPI in them.

So the protection isn't that great in my opinion, while the cost is pretty
significant.   But, I agree that it's a concern.

We have the opportunity in 6LoRH to effectively make other incompatible
changes since deploying 6LoRH will be an incompatible change.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-