IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] unware leaves --- terminology and expectations

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 17 September 2019 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 EED2F12084D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
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 G4kcgpSsm4Vq for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9DFA12000F for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3221E3897C for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E833C560 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <786C0A95-6D6E-4847-ACBC-B59E312F29BB@cisco.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB35659CC421169CC79891D1B3D8BB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3940.1567790341@dooku.sandelman.ca> <MN2PR11MB3565016C170EC68801B54ED6D8B70@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <5102.1568314634@dooku.sandelman.ca> <MN2PR11MB3565B466ACDA4AC77BC720A8D8B30@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <25877.1568654437@localhost> <786C0A95-6D6E-4847-ACBC-B59E312F29BB@cisco.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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:24:38 -0400
Message-ID: <20887.1568744678@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/WY2ADS8zStrdTsThKsLJv5mKkR0>
Subject: Re: [Roll] unware leaves --- terminology and expectations
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:24:42 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Yes we are trying to accomplish the same thing.
    > Note that the RPL data plane the the RxL supports is just following RFC
    > 8200. That does not mean any RPL awareness. So I really do not see why
    > it would have RPL aware in its name...

Neither RFC8200 nor RFC8504 mandate that a node must be able to handle
IP{dst=me}headers,IP{dst=me}.

If we can't handle that in the leaf, then I think we gain nothing by writing this document.

Further, if an RPL-aware-leaf can insert RPI on outgoing packets, then that
also saves inserting an IPIP header at the first 6LR.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email