[Roll] on the use of RPL without RPI (was Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 13 April 2017 14:54 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 8B6D01205D3; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 9UNXE8hzvd0j; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:54:19 -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 C2AB81294B3; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 07:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A905E1D7; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B22636BB; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <ae35261f3dac4a9fa123f33610bb9805@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <1491971619970.42705@ssni.com>, <CD3480AD-3934-4C9E-B6F3-E399A32BACC8@tzi.org> <1491974218584.69073@ssni.com> <ae35261f3dac4a9fa123f33610bb9805@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+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: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:54:18 -0400
Message-ID: <15236.1492095258@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/YrhuTW9GGrrC0EO3VRSHwmbCTeE>
Subject: [Roll] on the use of RPL without RPI (was Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Apr 2017 14:54:22 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Hello Benjamin:

...

    > The control plane can be adapted, certainly quite easily. But a key
    > question is whether or not the data plane can be adapted to use RPL's
    > RPI or not.

    > The RPI is how RPL signals its instances and manages routing failures.

...

    > RPL can work without it, we do that in ANIMA for wired use cases (see
    > draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-06).  But that means quickly
    > repairing any damage, which is probably not good for battery operated
    > devices.

It wasn't clear to me that we were specifying the ACP to operate RPL without
RPI.  It was a bug that I was going to try to get fixed.

I also was thinking about how useofrplinfo (and rfc2460bis header
insertion...) applied to the ACP, and what compromises we could make given
the apparent new views.


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