[Roll] [roll] #173 (useofrplinfo): Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 29 January 2016 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7D71A037F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:19:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3PHTwEg7pLzr for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:19:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (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 3A5E31A0377 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:38957 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1aP9tC-0000ph-A3; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:19:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:19:06 -0000
X-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/173
Message-ID: <068.083c7610ff2ac4904b0f3d42985de0e5@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 173
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/TARKWyvREX2KoefsXBobKO6oD-g>
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] [roll] #173 (useofrplinfo): Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: 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: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:19:08 -0000

#173: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

 In this case the flow comprises:

    6LN --> 6LR --> common parent (6LR) --> 6LR --> not-RPL-aware 6LN

    Somehow, the sender has to know that the receiver is not RPL aware,
    and needs to know 6LR, and not even the root knows where the 6LR is
    (in storing mode).

 This case FAILS.

  This needs to be signaled.

    Attribute of ::/0 route?  Or implicit because destination not
    matching PIO?  If in doubt, add IPIP?  IPIP dst = 6LBR (00)

 Reporter:                           |      Owner:
  mariainesrobles@gmail.com          |  mariainesrobles@gmail.com
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  useofrplinfo             |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/173>
roll <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>