Re: [Roll] Projected routes and RFC 8138

I think adding new flag is a good idea.

AB

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:12 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dear all
>
>
>
> *   I’m willing to add text on the DAO projection draft to discuss RFC
> 8138. RFC 8138 was designed for RPL as it stands and optimizes P in IP
> compression for the case where either the source or destination of IP in IP
> is the root.   IP in IP -------- An implementation is used to 1) IP in IP
> with SRH from the root to the last node indicated in the SRH or 2) IP in IP
> with no SRH from the node indicated as encapsulator to (implicitely) the
> root. For DAO projection we will use an SRH from the node indicated as
> encapsulator to the last node indicated in the SRH, which is a mix of the
> above. It is compatible with RFC8138 but possibly untried with existing
> code. My suggestion is to represent an example packet that has IP in IP and
> SRH and none of the outer IPs is the root   RPI ---- RPI flags and Rank are
> useless along the projected route. On the other hand, we could use a new
> flag in the RPI to indicated that the route is a projected route in the
> non-storing case. Seems to me that we could propose an additional RPI
> encoding that : - Is inspired from the existing RPI compression but is
> elective- Does not contain a Rank information nor the flags- May Indicate
> projected route, another thread on that   What to others think?   Pascal *
>
>
>
>
> * _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org <Roll@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll> *