Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, non-storing P-DAO

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 June 2018 11:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO0Djp1n9oQ3wDD0TFJZqKD70ZBHP5rXac+Hz7xzS88aQGnYsA@mail.gmail.com> <6b16c897762d4f979b8302022c79bf79@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6b16c897762d4f979b8302022c79bf79@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:28:14 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp0_1w=-kajs12Cg-yApDqpy1YqLjbPbrxe8uyUxoUoC3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cALAWfuZUcHmoL_zm2KN0V9ZLwg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, non-storing P-DAO
Precedence: list

One thing that comes to my mind is using DAO base object bits... But i
m not sure if they can/should be expended for such purpose.
Another option is to use TIO bits and make TIO mandatory preceding the
VIOs ... Other fields such as path-seq/lifetime can also be removed
from VIO and can be kept only in TIO. Anyways having a different
Path-Sequence in individual VIOs does not help (not sure if having a
different path lifetime in individual VIO is needed?).
For current implementation, i m planning to go ahead with an extra
pass/traversal over the options to check for multiple VIOs.
 On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 at 14:54, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> I agree Rahul,
>
> I picked that method as a starting point but as I presented at the IETF meeting I do not like it either, and it would be great that the group come up with something better.
>
> Would you have a particular preference based on your experience here?
>
> Pascal
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Sent: mercredi 13 juin 2018 03:55
> > To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>; Pascal
> > Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> > Subject: DAO Projection - identifying storing, non-storing P-DAO
> >
> > Hello Pascal, WG,
> >
> > When i started implementing storing mode P-DAO, i faced one problem, ... as
> > per the draft the only way to identify storing P-DAO from non-storing P-DAO
> > is that storing P-DAO has at-least 2 VIOs whereas non-storing P-DAO has only
> > one VIO.
> > The problem with implementation is that i need to traverse the whole P-DAO
> > before i know whether it is storing or non-storing P-DAO and populate the
> > route table accordingly. This way either i have to buffer VIO/via temporarily
> > and then act. Otherwise i have to have a 2-pass traversal through the P-DAO
> > to check whether it is storing or non-storing first and then act on the fields in
> > later pass.
> >
> > If we can have a flag somewhere in the P-DAO header to signal storing or non-
> > storing then it would make implementation much simpler.
> >
> > For interested ones, part implementation of DAO projection code is at:
> > https://github.com/whitefield-framework/contiki/tree/dao_projection
> > It currently supports registration/unregistration of projected routes using
> > non-storing P-DAO with +/- ACKing.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rahul

Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Rahul Jadhav
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Rahul Jadhav
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Rahul Jadhav
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
[Roll] DAO Projection - identifying storing, non-… Rahul Jadhav