Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Thu, 12 December 2019 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 20CA012012C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:44:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9hK4mncJQ3DY for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56DBE120024 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F1F3899D for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:40:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331A1726 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB3565E131BDE051D0AD920F84D85A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAO0Djp1UW+hmvN0FE7c+GW2jqdwrGVJ-1JPXE4WBQH=MgVUXVA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:44:09 -0500
Message-ID: <20889.1576187049@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Son7a9XHuZcERyWn61_N3mN-3cU>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Reclaiming the bits
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 21:44:12 -0000

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
    > [RJ] I am inline with these points.  I would like to confirm a point
    > here... Reclaiming the turnon-8138 flag in
    > MOP >=7 would mean that 8138 is _mandatorily_ supported in the nodes
    > above >=7 such that they no more depend on this flag. This in itself
    > is a bigger
    > decision! Is my understanding correct? While the advantages of 8138 are
    > obvious in non-storing MOP case, they are less impacting/obvious in
    > storing MOP case.

I agree that it is a bigger decision.
I also think that it's tying RPL to 802.15.4/6lo a lot too!

So, let me attempt to rephrase it.
For MOP >= 7, the bits being reclaimed, and that bit does not indicate turnon-8138.
We could have a capability that turned it on/off.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [