IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection

Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> Thu, 13 October 2022 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>
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 C2243C1527A3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1UhwAkXSuRml for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mimuw.edu.pl (mail.mimuw.edu.pl [193.0.96.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD385C15259F for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duch.mimuw.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE4561BD90EE; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:55:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mimuw.edu.pl
Received: from duch.mimuw.edu.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mimuw.edu.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id DoJsO91BLL_R; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:55:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPV6:2a02:a311:813e:880:d54e:f554:f990:7087] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a311:813e:880:d54e:f554:f990:7087]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by duch.mimuw.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:55:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <39e6a070-c4f9-7fd1-8fad-310cf8726539@mimuw.edu.pl>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:55:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <CAP+sJUfcEY2DNEQV=duJdN6P8zZn0ccuei+4ra-B6TcLb5z8Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO0Djp3w4vWCOawQ+eegNTRzb_HRGYH6n=bdEH6iVf5ZO0AGFQ@mail.gmail.com> <f71fe153-c0d1-097e-a72e-49ece97cbd48@mimuw.edu.pl> <10272666-28c7-ab3e-9ceb-1b8f2bb6e5e5@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881A5AA0E5C5010FD2BE39ED8749@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <bc174171-4b68-40b2-d532-463709e5bea8@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881D0C985582B28AE2DE8BED84E9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ab695952-3b11-46ad-f638-622ca770f8e1@mimuw.edu.pl> <02c7a894-b7a8-8fcb-9119-172a91a3871b@mimuw.edu.pl> <8421.1620834368@localhost> <d0f9bd53-ed96-1512-5bc2-59063ba2d5dc@mimuw.edu.pl> <b556ca50-b2db-798f-1cf2-8d7a77d5ad63@mimuw.edu.pl> <21a67951-92c7-5cfa-7bda-a11ac004492c@mimuw.edu.pl> <260038.1647531160@dooku> <5fad2f45-02a5-7241-f797-43165b0fc9a2@mimuw.edu.pl> <386984.1649868259@dooku> <eed72f83-127a-8705-f956-d4765b967027@mimuw.edu.pl> <ca6c aa5f-a185-522d-6751-e3b5218acd43@mimuw.edu.pl> <26461.1665677140@localhost>
From: Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>
In-Reply-To: <26461.1665677140@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/YWf-7SChMZq_Ijuu1QtaQZrxPNc>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:55:38 -0000


On 13/10/2022 18:05, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
>      > 3. Is rebuilding the DODAG in such a case desirable?
> 
>      > If the majority of links to the root that have once formed a DODAG are
>      > currently down, then the DODAG should probably look different than for
>      > the network with those links up. Rebuilding the DODAG, at least in my
>      > opinion, makes a lot of sense in such a case. Furthermore, the threshold
>      > describing how large the majority is is configurable. Depending on whether
>      > one wants to prioritize speeding up root failure detection or slowing down
>      > DODAG rebuilding, different values can be chosen.
> 
> Do the sentinels need to agree on this threshold?

Yes, they should. This is a configuration parameter of the protocol.

>      > 4. Why can't Sentinels ask the root whether it is dead?
> 
>      > In fact they do. If a Sentinel observes that an increasing number of other
>      > Sentinels considers the root as dead, it may perform verification by trying
>      > to contact the root via a direct link.
> 
>      > I hope to have covered all the questions.
> 
> I think so.
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

-- 
- Konrad Iwanicki.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email