IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 17 September 2014 10:11 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
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 D1BE91A0154; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 iQl4RhUZFuZr; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x235.google.com (mail-qa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF56C1A0067; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id n8so1515416qaq.12 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZzskrjH2BNe/cF1zl/9VCIs8TQo8xaMKYAAYhJZ38JY=; b=OF6VDCTZ/WK/puMaDy1zXe+PuETpmRJfhLq7KzR7rYHltfnQWNEUD+3h8YITSTqf9p S7xfNVrFWlVef1W9LA33UAbCMtW7wF7UfJ0bxvgTAZpRLLrU2lwlJW0edMfH/ZodFLAU VhC54Ox3fZdrzAr1EY0/L3hnz7WyLOjA+muk2xYPkDhdhZv/MFw4NHB7ZSY1XQM1eDo9 xioTz2P157i9vYCy4SAlFcQ9YqEBt+1Y+r32rv/v/bHLpMs2w8lwI7MhGppPzRb4kgVj j9bki8eAfg7leAGXqyJA6LjJO4ufugUid+BJJf+O0czZ5fOIYmR7sDpuz3KOZc2dhptd vUZQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.53.69 with SMTP id f45mr50159190yhc.53.1410948688973; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.86.196 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0FE1C6E1-EBA2-431D-A2DB-1C3874234827@tzi.org>
References: <CAH=LnKQDPf_-Tw7BODF03PKYkLXjLCSR9RAtd-x9-ha-c80Hrg@mail.gmail.com> <037472BD-E257-4561-8A07-988039DD4641@nestlabs.com> <CAMsDxWTHrgDLopT1Oz93xAuCyimAADmudBj71PTiHgCAj28CPg@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842DC5072@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <2992BA1F-147C-4652-B713-D2F31F45F74F@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842DC5639@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <0FE1C6E1-EBA2-431D-A2DB-1C3874234827@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:11:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89F0fwoOfiDODDm_tuQVTqg-CTDT013KsHzdeEydKU3qA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0122971c67161c05034017d9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/U_MolLAbBqaPWbw5ArwIl1L7IKU
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Sep 2014 10:11:35 -0000

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2014, at 09:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > - 6MAN on whether we can avoid having to set and/or carry a field of
> randomized 20 bits in the LLN
>
> Laudable, and completely unrelated to the hijacking.
> (Not on critical path, anyway.)
>
> > then eventually rewrite it for LLN purpose
>
> Don’t do that.


Why not?


>
> > - ROLL to decide whether to use a ROLL solution (based on FL is the only
> one on the table) or
>
> The flow label is not ROLL’s, so there is nothing to do here.


If this WG decides that we want ROLL's solution decision then we may do
cross WGs discussions or cross areas (this in not done much in IETF because
still IETF is not flexible or ADs are not promoting that enough).


>
> > wait for 6lo to deliver
>
> ROLL has waited long enough for consensus to build in 6man around the flow
> label hijacking.
> Not happening.
>
> > - 6Lo to decide whether and how to compress the RPL option (3 proposals
> on the table)
>
> I think we are converging quickly here.


I think we need to clarify that 3 proposals. So why you think we are doing
it quickly.


>
> Summary:
>
> I’m calling for all involved to stop muddying the water with the dead flow
> label hijacking proposal.
> It is a distraction from the consensus that is being built around a 6lo
> solution, and it will never fly.


Why you think that it is dead? I don't think it expired yet. What do you
mean by consensus built around 6Lo solution, do you mean the 6Lo charter?
Why you think that it never fly?

I understood Martins proposal but did not understand your reply reasons.


 AB

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email