Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 2A00A12DCD2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
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 LfF5THFZrsvF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (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 B55FD12D0C3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id r140so15513564vkf.0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=HEGbbDKmpsQJPSGLXyDlV4VuwiE94cwaQc6wRXxcJPg=; b=xuG8XR2uz3z50WDzoK3k4tqtEy605aRYUl5yvzBZ040Uesmn76q4ekRTkCAO/qcTYh g11zhmprYM3AmyEBBSU3YzMoN0wyfGL80tFiUrCf5BbIVxSFlTzhPVaZDSTqNknzBSEd 2JuQeJhDBHIVPvwB50wfI82aVmG9vRm4OB9lv13jeK+oF5BpoCVnRGM+A+gCk4XfGuKK mFj2MsmGFtMyYjnl0zBQ/XTjLtpGrLS5kAT/8CiwSnnkUxClVSiScOvQ5FeHDGqMacVn KSmQdSVhE2CwIs7k/PhyBEM4lc+z2SdblTrdZKXM6eajNACIoT1Oxb5wefzDbAiJ8djq JClg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=HEGbbDKmpsQJPSGLXyDlV4VuwiE94cwaQc6wRXxcJPg=; b=LiF0VQK2spSL+OjoDXm497ckD+R8T5yLXfCwV05SMPZgeO5SFK0sVECihOX4WaOqim hCLD8nByQ6AK9s6x74XXtfkMN/Z9UV5XbHpfgLBQLml7kf3Aof9zSUMihAFo1rJp808E mbClboycGUOk8a0vBDJJOElPkb3+DgFIsm4ycInFxvgFnXvg9ocgMB5hFzJ7B1Z6e+ha /XHfoPQbZBV0b1PYdDiI7WvUmGH3CRoSebJQHcvyPryc8rQiyUu8m/A3+czvFeBqQ89W 6wpAVbxDHIv97xX34UOVzCb1YalT3lmaJf8k7FwIQBPAcVRbcf7d2q+oK5dOXXGN6Ftg rqSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJQODPz/CAfvTeD3XDIvAW2fvcfdUKEpOSCulpuEoZjNk/mm/cIBPH8a2dOsfk2MslA97UVbIJxRQ+kIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.36.86 with SMTP id 80mr1983295uaq.71.1464085610861; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.37.98 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1747ba1478659868c3b715ff8b807c6c@xs4all.nl>
References: <09c3e3fc17b5de9b7366d226c034da28@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUePiV+_Nd+f-H-x_zNoTgkS0Cqe1rq7qD7ie_H3MyOorw@mail.gmail.com> <bc96b8913fff031fc1f41eedfdb6bee3@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUe=t7MwkVAUd33+tz_M7J6sqmHKahCQsiBm_e86eHb6cA@mail.gmail.com> <1747ba1478659868c3b715ff8b807c6c@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:26:50 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUep6u43OtAtwSw8stPVCT-r2Mfssp2=Va8sXvtL7f8vQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: "consultancy@vanderstok.org" <consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11495c50c19cda053393fe0a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/V7cJ8RtpQF3qJfsZD-Q_F6-eZCg>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:26:53 -0000

Ah, got it, thank you very much.

Ines

2016-05-24 13:22 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:

> Hi,
>
> that means writing "one RPL instance" in figure 3 in stead of "RPL
> instance" to remove that ambiguity.
> Writing in the use case section a phrase as the one below will be more
> than sufficient for me.
>
> peter
>
> Ines  Robles schreef op 2016-05-24 12:16:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> We are just considering here one RPLInstance.
>>
>> Working with different RPLInstances, involves deeply analysis, which
>> we could do in the future. But, actually I dont know if it is
>> possible/useful to send a message from one RPL Instance to another one
>> , since for example a RPL node may belong to multiple RPL Instances,
>> and it may act as a router in some and as a leaf in others[1], for
>> this reason it does not make sense to me sending packet from one
>> RPLInstance to other RPLInstance. Besides the control messages has one
>> field for RPLInstanceID, it does not have RPLInstanceID origen or
>> RPLInstanceID dst.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Ines
>>
>> [1] RFC6550. Section 5. RFC 6550 describes only how a single instance
>> behaves
>>
>> 2016-05-24 12:17 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:
>>
>> I also did not see a mapping of flow from one RPL instance to
>>> another instance.
>>>
>>> I do not understand this. Could you please clarify?
>>>
>>
>>  A node belonging to one RPL instance sends a message to a node
>> belonging to another RPL instance.
>> This seems possible in Figure 3, with 3 RPL instances?
>>
>> If possible, it means an additional use case.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>