IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 17 December 2018 07:36 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 D7D9E128CE4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 23:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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
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 oHxL9yj_glOT for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 23:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60C541294D7 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 23:36:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11506; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1545032191; x=1546241791; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=nkwnmcQtqPT2+gGGvHLU61DwOpif75Df0zjRKkMqfvs=; b=Br60+PUdBXX33EW+tpnxR81XV8uIa3AJEJD2AWGG/MG/pahbqhGq6L4c nC61oqD8WOdLgXdih12NSe7N/Reg4IiAPh6qXn5+oWF9thvhC6RvBbgqj 0b4blVIKGMptIwqzFkssrzc8K0TOGTl8Mn9PtuB3lfSHvouOOEKe4vWwp Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AEAACcURdc/4oNJK1kGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBDUgFKWaBAicKg3KIGYt1gg2RfYVbgXoLAQGEbAIXgnkiNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtKIU8AQEBBCMKXAIBCBEEAQErAgICMB0IAgQTCIMbgRxkp1WBL4odjD4XgUA/gRABgxKEYQEBAkKCYoJXAok+hXeRZAkCkVAgkVKZPQIRFIEnHziBVnAVgyeDPQEJjRMBQTGMOIEfgR8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,364,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="214076760"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Dec 2018 07:36:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wBH7aPRa008247 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 07:36:25 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:36:24 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:36:24 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs
Thread-Index: AQHUimiXEKsU4tniOU6pS6xXVR2aEKWCoHfQ
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 07:36:13 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 07:35:46 +0000
Message-ID: <0cb3313f79eb475090937a932b793efc@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAO0Djp0wiHUg15SfLzqXRF6Ko9JBbeL7C9CLZ6HRXcNxf+=Gew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp0wiHUg15SfLzqXRF6Ko9JBbeL7C9CLZ6HRXcNxf+=Gew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0cb3313f79eb475090937a932b793efcXCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/hTmNKLTSPdM15SLXq-QpShI0jyY>
Subject: Re: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs
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: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 07:36:34 -0000

Sorry for the delay, Rahul,  I’m dequeueing stuff now : )

I’m unclear on that. I think a legacy implementation will badly react to a weirdly formed message and the root will not know. How can we know?
I believe we need a new draft for MOP extender (use a MOP for saying that) and then use a field somewhere to define new MOPs.
This could be done quite quickly happy to help make that happen.

Take care,

Pascal


From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
Sent: dimanche 2 décembre 2018 18:58
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: [Roll] DAO-Projection and new MOPs

Hi Pascal, WG,

This mail is regarding concern on how to handle MOP exhaustion in DIO. With AODV-RPL and DAO-projection we would essentially use up all the possible MOP values. This point was raised in ROLL-sessions before but we haven't really discussed this on ML.

To begin with, I was wondering, do we really need new MOPs for dao-projection?
Can we handle dao-projection as something which can be incrementally added to existing MOPs? For e.g. if the network is established in NS-MOP (non-storing MOP=1) then we can use P-DAO to project routes down the network and if the destination legacy node does not understand P-DAO then it should send a negative ACK for the DAO. Problem is, right now i don't see how legacy nodes (who dont understand new RPO options) can distinguish between P-DAO and normal DAO.
As i understand, the new MOP is required because of this new mandatory handling required for P-DAOs. Is it possible to have P-DAO such that legacy nodes generate negative ACK if they cannot handle it?

Also currently we have two types of storing MOPs (in 6550), one with multicast (MOP=3) and one without multicast (MOP=2). DAO-Projection defines only one storing MOP. Thus as i understand in DAO-Projection draft the storing MOP has multicast support by default. Is this ok to assume?

Regards,
Rahul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email