Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4?
Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Thu, 05 April 2012 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=435672ecd=mukul@uwm.edu>
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 561E921F8680 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZWyk+ypwbpN for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (smtp.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D84321F866B for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAPikfU9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABDhXy2DQEBBSNWDA8RBAEBAwINGQJRCBmIDgusY4lugSGBL44TgRgEiFmNEoERjyODBQ
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285191FD0C8; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:02:45 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LDhqB+SUzjp; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:02:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20211FD0C7; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:02:44 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:02:44 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: roll@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1018835258.1824920.1333634564656.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <055.ed950f694b72a8ba34415940cc53be68@trac.tools.ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Apr 2012 14:02:46 -0000
JP This ticket should be titled differently: Why P2P-RPL cannot establish a backward hop-by-hop route? Thanks Mukul ----- Original Message ----- From: "roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> To: mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com Cc: roll@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 6:01:25 AM Subject: [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4? #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4? Resolution: Open Discussion: p12 : This specification does not allow for the establishment of hop-by- hop routes in the backward direction. [Cedric] Why ? This would enable to establish 2 routes within a single route request. Furthermore, you stipulates in the draft that links have to be bidirectional to propagates RDO, in order to be able to send back the DRO. So if I understand it correctly you ensure that you have a reliable path in both ways. Why using it in a single way only ? [Mukul] Suppose a DRO establishing a forward hop-by-hop route fails to make it to the origin. In this case, all we have is some nodes storing the hop-by-hop state for a broken route but that route is never used since the origin never gets the DRO. On the other hand, if the DRO establishing a backward hop-by-hop route fails to make it to the origin, we have a broken route that the target is likely to use (to reach the origin). So, if we want P2P-RPL to establish a backward hop-by-hop route, the target MUST ask for a DRO-ACK from the origin (to make sure that the DRO does reach the origin and hence the backward route is not broken). This can be done if you think it will be useful. We did not include this in P2P-RPL because we did not have a usecase for backward hop-by-hop routes and we wanted to avoid the additional complexity. This is how we can implement this functionality: we will let the target decide whether it wants the DRO to establish a backward hop-by-hop route. In that case: 1) the target will set a new flag, the B flag (B for backward hop-by-hop route), inside the DRO to let intermediate routers know that backward route state needs to be established as well; 2) the target will set the A flag to require a DRO-ACK from the origin; 3) the target will specify (inside a new field in the DRO), an RPLInstanceID under which the hop-by-hop state for the backward route will be stored. Note that the RPLInstanceID of the forward route (selected by the origin) may not be OK for use in backward route (because the target may have already used this RPLInstanceID for another hop-by-hop route, using different routing-metrics/constraints/OF, to the origin). When the intermediate routers receive this DRO, they will store the hop- by-hop state for the backward route. This hop-by-hop state will consist of: 1) Target address (taken from P2P-RDO inside the DRO). 2) RPLInstanceID specified by the target 3) The destination, i.e., the origin address (same as DODAGID inside the DRO). Do you want this functionality? -- -----------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: jpv@… | Owner: mukul@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: p2p-rpl | Version: Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: -----------------------------------+--------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/93> roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>
- [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation ca… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… C Chauvenet
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… C Chauvenet
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… C Chauvenet
- [Roll] Closure text for ticket #93 Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #93 JP Vasseur