Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and RCSS of an Option
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 09:24 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 C31653A0B76 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 02:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=LxBiTZ5A; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=m7vXjFHB
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 BNPe_vv1ivxO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 02:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D30E13A0B6A for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 02:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16949; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1591262653; x=1592472253; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=2byqMc2fo5rh34pS9sUdXTfDauqNfCLgLJ3ZDCxiBPM=; b=LxBiTZ5AxynC/HqRO3hlZrsPufl4rzscPT5PJvV+Zmhmecy05phLFJ5b 041teCDGD649zimL7s2KMo0ghT2O7nDm+7nhurp+qOU513s0bq66xa72B ixI3TH1UADzw1GG3rIdafxuU+UU7ZgduBmzPD18Fy/naaIQLo2i0MnUqK U=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:phMK1BLqhhJTqr9bz9mcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4ZM7irVIN76u5InmIFeGvK8/jVLVU8Pc8f0Xw+bVsqW1X2sG7N7BtX0Za5VDWlcDjtlehA0vBsOJSCiZZP7nZiA3BoJOAVli+XzoMEVJFoD5fVKB6nG35CQZTxP4Mwc9L+/pG4nU2sKw0e36+5DabwhSwjSnZrYnJxStpgKXvc4T0oY=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CUBQBnvdhe/5ldJa1cChwBAQEBAQEHAQESAQEEBAEBQIFKgSMBLiMvB29YLyyHawONR5NohGiCUgNVCwEBAQwBAS0CBAEBhEQCghsCJDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVbDIVyAQEBAQMSGxMBATgPAgEIEQMBAQEoBzIUCQgCBBMIGoJ/BAKBfk0DLgGjZAKBOYhhdIE0gwEBAQWFShiCDgmBOIJkgk2HGxqBQT+BEUOCHy4+hCEPIB4WgxGCLY5xiT+bRAqCWZkagmeJDJJHklWYEIQXAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFqIgyBSnAVgyRQFwINkECDcopWdDcCBggBAQMJfI5tAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,471,1583193600"; d="scan'208,217";a="761852188"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 04 Jun 2020 09:24:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0549O1Le023294 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:24:03 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:24:02 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:24:01 -0500
Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:24:01 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=NpytowjP3sRa8SehNXO6rRqTzv5SvN0FZQp0H7twU968i3Mty//0lhByCq//YE2SB+peYDFnuOyXKUh3VZnFh2xSg3CB3Z6oY8kyz/OgUZN03lHb+pNKcvVQJGMZ6DnbSX05XnLJvsYFgy085aCCAKXMIB22H4QobC3/BRHE0WjxfbwaLpjiu69gAq0eqRjkBCqe0QbcNsxUUWXQLRISMqB+FC5L65pURmFRx5fPIYic3TYePLj3zG6O2jE7V131kqCY74I//SX5QXtUtTGY7weR8TygEL/tNF2skmsdYkem8Kg+ojSJDhCEhWltd0sDrpI99fMWEC3y0mZWahJeWg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=85GbmiET8n6XHe9Q8i2xQvKRoNB6l18mcBr0Z78BUk4=; b=RpEHNvlCVmTirBGpnYXHDL/gqKmz+V5zk5OP0jzbM81/dmPiD/5Hz/AJPYTuiGnlg+ctz7Tm8aGeKrk27GGKlEAyleFyJefvyx3HUXDmEx5iI5LHhn5jij5869Iv7puQTQWXml6UIYYkWr3D/L8W1dvFoXYSW+WXiuZNEJt58BKBWw1UwN9gxSIxreJfpb7W3V0qg2DSHDc929OkI6rUbH256kanY0DwfFlIryLQvrsUV3RRuGAlh7gfqfwi/zKDfZDjUScgM1z4+bVPBo1QCGhwcoHR+vA99ZZqXCaAVD3QF6HokGaPd96Cr4BxK63Vm6cm25uAGUVsnjyJd6KkxQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=85GbmiET8n6XHe9Q8i2xQvKRoNB6l18mcBr0Z78BUk4=; b=m7vXjFHBAp59l39bnW+Rju7UvtRtrN2xsmFdDEW4+Fk+aP17TGYA+arFQgLUVGjTkG5MKHENite75m6RySzldmrIzBwzn0X82eeWPQbuOpNGS+kST/W2pClmlJVnERHEURoNOVBnAtSJJoAAgYLyAzsTu89i7uUv7qlsLB+Nq/4=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:ea::31) by MN2PR11MB3613.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:ee::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3045.19; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:24:00 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::55bb:b065:86c1:1108]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::55bb:b065:86c1:1108%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3045.022; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:24:00 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and RCSS of an Option
Thread-Index: AQHWOkocKpj1H27IcEy2JaZ6sG/+EqjIIHHMgAANr7A=
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 09:23:58 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:22:59 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB3565C30982F2D8BF89591C3BD8890@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <A5D0DBD4-39F8-4161-90CC-BF52512FA1F8@cisco.com> <MAXPR01MB249313BD2C861A6EF00A9111A9890@MAXPR01MB2493.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <MAXPR01MB249313BD2C861A6EF00A9111A9890@MAXPR01MB2493.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a01:cb1d:4ec:2200:74dd:ab9c:2db9:a66f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9f55f673-6214-4169-52b2-08d808690417
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3613:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB36136DBFBAC577D1F8EAD176D8890@MN2PR11MB3613.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 04244E0DC5
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Fd7cmsPQF9cxWXpss3qPqimUbldZtRdEFX7ilcAh/hl359R7flxowFoCZuj8I3wm/8MUN0rsaoB8bvVX3xXzdmVNbScM5yLOO9YKEZRwHfrJGCNOxUR6uS/B9K5ZHuTNBpXuBVZ9kBiL5eVPrdjgLQWEa4DixxOD8uJCV6pOR/5PXKwxtSLq8sRBSW0APkJLDUsfQYaU+2iGEPrgky2dEDkjZdm2Z3UW58gIubdhGcOC/O/3752Dblqaq6z+1qd+9EkJXbfZxy5h46UN+xtPe0i1qweVTDrLtpWtcebRnKj5xX5U5tI8sIDa7hm5lwe8
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(376002)(86362001)(6916009)(2906002)(316002)(186003)(76116006)(55016002)(9686003)(66556008)(53546011)(45080400002)(5660300002)(478600001)(66946007)(83380400001)(52536014)(8936002)(66446008)(66476007)(8676002)(6506007)(64756008)(7696005)(71200400001)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB3565C30982F2D8BF89591C3BD8890MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9f55f673-6214-4169-52b2-08d808690417
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jun 2020 09:24:00.5331 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: pBozNVABTsjW3nBYMf5gBAGCAGytCf1XUJecQ8uYeUZBaN9GPC9Xw2HaNpZtajxB+r9r6ookLOxywR06S6H94w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3613
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/fF_MtclU2PWFOx_dW5wwAeQhS5U>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and RCSS of an Option
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 04 Jun 2020 09:24:16 -0000
Hello Rahul If the root always sends all options when it increments the RCSS then we get the behavior you're proposing. So maybe the possibility to advertise options separately is a capability? Pascal From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav Sent: jeudi 4 juin 2020 10:44 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and RCSS of an Option Please find my response inline [RJ]. RCSS can identify whole options in DIO, but it may be not flexible. Imagine the case that some reduced function device which don't support MOPex/GCO, when root only update MOPex/GCO, even though RCSS increment, DIO can carry AOO and advertise the updated options, these RFDs could ignore the RCSS increment. [RJ] I would argue on the contrary that for an RFD the complexity of AOO is even less useful. Assuming that the protected options change rarely, how big is the utility for an RFD to know that only one of the protected options is changed and syncing it individually. Is it possible to add mode for RCSS? Simple mode means RCSS can only be a common counter for all the options. Complex mode means AOO can identify individual protected options? [RJ] I understand that the draft supports simple mode and complex mode (using AOO) is only an extension. But what I intend to say is that the complex mode may be a deterrent to anyone reading the draft. More importantly, I could not figure out much utility. The purpose of this draft is to reduce runtime network overhead. I would argue that complex mode will reduce the control overhead by a fraction of a percentage but requires more flash/ram. From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Rahul Jadhav <nyrahul@outlook.com<mailto:nyrahul@outlook.com>> Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 15:45 To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>> Subject: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and RCSS of an Option Hello All, Pascal, Based on my understanding currently, the draft serves three purposes: 1. Helps elide common DIO options which rarely change 2. Helps elide common DAO options during route refresh cycles 3. Allow sync for individual protected options by assigning RCSS to an option (this implies the use of new AOO) Points 1 and 2 are quite clear and easy to follow. The whole complexity of the proposal lies in point 3 and from what I understand I believe the utility is not convincing enough for the amount of complexity it introduces. My understanding is that with AOO, it is possible that a Root assigns a different RCSS to individual protected options such that the downstream nodes can individually query and synchronize with any of that option on change. My rationale is that PIO/RIO/DODAG Configuration/MOPex/GCO options rarely change. IMO, if either of it changes then it is no big deal to advertise all the options. Rather than managing versions for each of these options, the RCSS can only be a common counter for all the options. I understand that RCSS of an option is "an extension" and it is possible to only use common RCSS. But I believe the whole RCSS of an option as an extension is adding to the complexity of the draft (introducing more scenarios to handle), and also making it difficult for the reader. Best, Rahul
- [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and RCSS … Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Li Zhao (liz3)
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] Eliding-Info: Abbreviated Option and R… Rahul Jadhav