Re: [Roll] [roll] #89: Spec is limited to single interface intermediate routers

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Fri, 13 April 2012 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFD921F8622 for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.131
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.468, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfp-N7Eq4pFH for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42ED21F858A for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5530; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334323508; x=1335533108; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=4fP15wMUknp25ocYJ8h+DkXNsDgJATvF1rN8rAxS92w=; b=iYYIgpv0UW36K9KGMO+6xRg1O/45/84L0PnuZDwi5SHchIW7gpwsz0MK ob5+Jt0BTenh2MQqp0mbws7ss5HrFXuxog9vupdo3oAOx3u/lQFlVXNHp 9aSKCDxJDDeKlCifLAsaBf7xcjQlkyR2tqaM8l8PxfXemDsbDQoCNDI0L Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,417,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="74453612"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2012 13:25:08 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3DDP4b6001832; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:25:07 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:25:07 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:24:45 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [roll] #89: Spec is limited to single interface intermediate routers
Thread-Index: Ac0ZdkKOW5Su/TEuRIWYscaexKjQcQAAiOqw
References: <> <>
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Mukul Goyal <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2012 13:25:07.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7C5D950:01CD1978]
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #89: Spec is limited to single interface intermediate routers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:25:09 -0000

Hello Mukul

I'd prefer to use upward and downward which are the terms that RPL traditionally uses.... 

Is that OK with you? Otherwise yes, this text addresses my issue.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mukul Goyal [] 
Sent: vendredi 13 avril 2012 15:06
Cc:; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Subject: Re: [roll] #89: Spec is limited to single interface intermediate routers

Hi Pascal,

I propose the following text to be placed inside the Applicability section:

"The participation in a P2P-RPL route discovery is currently limited to the routers with IPv6 addresses that are reachable in both incoming and outgoing directions, which it quite typical in usual LLN routers with a single radio"

Can we close this ticket?


----- Original Message -----
From: "roll issue tracker" <>
To: mukul@UWM.EDU,
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:11:10 AM
Subject: [roll] #89: Spec is limited to single interface intermediate routers

#89: Spec is limited to single interface intermediate routers

 Problem (currently open)
 The spec does not allow for routers with multiple interfaces. It expects  that an address is usable downwards and upwards.


 "When an
 intermediate router adds itself to a route, it MUST ensure that the
 IPv6 address added to the route is reachable in both forward and  backward directions."
 This is written with the vision that the router has a single interface  and acts as a repeater.
 But really a router could have 2 interfaces on a same subnet in which  case that clause does not fly.

 All I mean is that the accumulated route MUST NOT have an address that  cannot be accessed in one of the directions. If the address cannot be  accessed in the backward direction, then the DRO would not be able to  travel to the origin.

 [Pascal2] Then you're preventing a router with 2 interfaces. That's sad.
 I'm fine for an experimental draft   but for standard track that will
 have to be changed.

 [Mukul2] OK, I am keeping it the way it is.

 [Pascal3] This also need to be logged as a last call issue and its  proposed resolution. Nothing wrong with having limitations, yet I think  we must have specific text to indicate that the spec so far is limited  to devices with a single interface. When we make the Standard Track  version, I expect we'll have to go beyond that limitation. The drawback  is for experimental  implementations that may not be interoperable with  the final solution.

 [Mukul3] Could you please explain how does the requirement regarding  addresses to be accessible in both forward and backward directions  limits P2P-RPL to only single interface devices? I think this  requirement means that P2P-RPL cannot be used across link layers. Is  that what you mean? I think allowing operation across link layers would  require P2P-RDO to accumulate additional information (backward address  to be used for forward addresses not accessible in backward direction).
 I think at the moment we want to avoid this complexity.

 [Pascal4] Because an IP address is associated to an interface. If you  have 2 interfaces, even in a same subnet, there should be 2 addresses.

 [Mukul4] But, why would the two IP addresses the device has on the same  subnet wont be accessible in both forward and backward directions?


 Reporter:  jpv@…                  |      Owner:  mukul@…
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |  Milestone:
Component:  p2p-rpl                |    Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |   Keywords:

Ticket URL: <>
roll <>