Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-07.txt
rabi narayan sahoo <rabinarayans0828@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2019 05:23 UTC
Return-Path: <rabinarayans0828@gmail.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 37CD812096F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:23:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 e7O8j0pP6Oib for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:23:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEE9712096E for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id i6so2021122ilr.11 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:23:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nIHWo37u51NqxFowv3WZogUDa0bco+2cjWI58K2sejA=; b=cN+gHRxSXaLgigZYklEMMNEKdDZ66+lUcoAq7y1XPTdBKhr7mhek1tMYkN3pQWv88w KgZ4d4YwCPKzkXyz12F1xIyDWt22TA3VztBdXAzblZYHiOlreRwWNx4gbVFG2teUH9sn wRy0S2ztedPuYfxo9wN9ixdaAD00sheyKBS3+AsfLfmhaTQoNh2c+EhWn42NHuEeRRmq uZ2RFG/QTCx18IT4mml/GB1DLAWN3vOJsmv8xbCLF0kQwmsJUlnWWjxrHtME/581yBtx 277n4Yc7k2tyUppPbO5bupxvuCAEHc+LtMv9Gf6HIPD1KrfDWFsqmqpI1J0engqjD6cQ mGeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nIHWo37u51NqxFowv3WZogUDa0bco+2cjWI58K2sejA=; b=WuQkBh4vGBVz4Jl5/E5V3qkMwOwgtwMu89XAASmcOMpyRuzzxI5gr7M8FjHocN0xxP 3PQ0dgMhdUE5AYTbSrL4g318f5hZyRjW9nVkRsfu+/mTtj9KdDftMDAwabR77iuyQ1xl Cx6df0yagaSnc6ue31KndxA2xcn3hgSCqBP8YSj3Asu5hvPD0S+rDDIin2J+a6BbDS7x 25IoRIb1UO30PZmlgj/JB9TZo92TRTjZ8v4FSWDDUiDmcOioBHnnLMMwQlRaemjWf5Za qBueCjx1I7m/u6T8ZHwmrhJIZJuiomDk1hAd7ff7xKwm4yI29PTNp9BzlyWBnyo5JNZ1 t+GQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXLunbjniv+Sm8TnFNxroVa+TwUn8uCK8pft/oKV7JEtOIphxK /bCKjk8p27VZMsmdLA7oqPlpNzD3+pZk0ON42S6brfIJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhvtkUO5OCzDsOMaRO6lwYyOrwtbsK0Xwgj3uZN4ERdInAo8s70PNVC9fP+EKX4lPpKjMT+5+tXelLWr5bWck=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:8c1c:: with SMTP id o28mr7770415ild.34.1574313829837; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 21:23:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157279012489.13233.10865514638801334001@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPT0++3pO7+=PLYk-ok5hV2UW=6djX38s9mz+ej=V=P2O5-jYg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB35652C8342CE518C3B62FFBAD87F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB35652C8342CE518C3B62FFBAD87F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: rabi narayan sahoo <rabinarayans0828@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:53:36 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPT0++187ucSbZAs+Wj685ErLh1ig5i31gU7qjJmCmF1AhmS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097b0700597d480b2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/i6zN6iK43ZLhWg5MxBfIuYT2lrg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-07.txt
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, 21 Nov 2019 05:23:53 -0000
Hi Pascal I am sorry for the late reply. [Suggestion] When a LN/LR requests for TE path using PDR it can mention the Network Metric that PCE need to consider while computing the P-Route. Like A node can request for a TE path based of Hop Count or based on Minimum latency or Minimum EXT or Maximum Battery Life. I think this will provide more flexibility for application. *<Rabi>It is good to know that you have already considered it. * [Query] Can PCE be a separate Physical Node Other than BR? If Yes how LR/LN will learn about it and send the PDR to it? *<Rabi> Its very clear now. * [Query] If PCE is a separate physical entity how the Sibling information will be shared with it, as DAO messages will always terminate at BR? *<Rabi> I agree with you, communication between BR and PCE (In case its a separate entity) need to be defined in separate doc. * [Query] If the metric of P-Route need to be different from the Network Metric used for the global mesh network, how a LN/LR is going to learn about that so that it can send the correct metric information in SIO? *<Rabi> I suggest the metrics requirement for P-Route to be advertised as part P-DAO capability enquiry/negotiation. This will modify the SIO too to send the metric information to PCE. I feel in normal RPL operation no change is needed with respect to OF or metric container. Metric container can be re-used with SIO. * Thanks Rabi On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:58 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Rabi : > > > > Many thanks, this is really helpful: I used them an pushed an 08 before > cutoff. Please see below. > > > > > > > > *From:* Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *rabi narayan sahoo > *Sent:* lundi 4 novembre 2019 07:54 > *To:* Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-07.txt > > > > Dear authors > > I reviewed the changes (only) and have some queries and suggestions for > the PDR and Sibling Information Option > > - P-DAO Request Message > > > - [Suggestion] When a LN/LR requests for TE path using PDR it can > mention the Network Metric that PCE need to consider while computing the > P-Route. Like A node can request for a TE path based of Hop Count or based > on Minimum latency or Minimum EXT or Maximum Battery Life. I think this > will provide more flexibility for application. > > <Pascal> Yes, I agree. I already had a todo for that in the xml. We need > to define together what metrics we want in there. That will be a new option > I guess. > > - [Query] Can PCE be a separate Physical Node Other than BR? If Yes > how LR/LN will learn about it and send the PDR to it? > > <Pascal> I added text for that already. The agreement we had so far is > that the Root is the only node that the RPL device knows. If there’s a PCE > and a protocol like PCEP, the Root should proxy. The current text reads: > > “ This specification uses the RPL Root as a proxy to the PCE. If the > actual PCE is a separate entity, then a protocol that is out of scope for > this specification is needed to relay the control elements between the RPL > Root and the PCE. > > “ > > I can move that to the intro and elaborate, e.g.: > > “ > > Projected Routes must be used with the parsimony to limit the amount > > of state that is installed in each device to fit within its > > resources, and to limit the amount of rerouted traffic to fit within > > the capabilities of the transmission links. The method to learn the > > node capabilities and the resources that are available in the devices > > and in the network are out of scope for this document. > > > > In RPL Non-Storing Mode, the Root has enough information to build a > > basic DODAG topology. This document adds the capability for nodes to > > advertise sibling information in order to improve the topological > > awareness of the Root. This specification uses the RPL Root as a > > proxy to the PCE. The algorithm to compute the paths and the > > protocol used by an external PCE to obtain the topology of the > > network from the Root are out of scope for this document. > > “ > > Works? > > </Pascal> > > - Sibling Information Option (SIO) > > > - [Query] If PCE is a separate physical entity how the Sibling > informations will be shared with it, as DAO messages will always terminate > at BR? > > <Pascal> > > As of now, the Root and the PCE talk in whichever way they feel like, but > that is out of scope. We could define a separate RPL-TE mode whereby the > Root exports the DODAG and sibling links to the PCE. The PCE could appear > as a Root of Roots (or a virtual Root, see RPL section 3.1.3 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550#section-3.1.3>). Or whereby it > builds a fake LSDB to reuse a PCE that talks OSPF TE. > > </Pascal> > > - [Query] If the metric of P-Route need to be different from the > Network Metric used for the global mesh network, how a LN/LR is going to > learn about that so that it can send the correct metric information in SIO? > > <Pascal> > > To be defined. In normal RPL, the metrics to use come with the knowledge > of the OF and there is nothing specified that uses the metrics container. > Do we want to do more here? I do not see that the measure of the sibling > link should differ to that of parent / child. > > </Pascal> > > > > > > - [Issue] Description of Sibling Address filed of SIO is exact copy of > VIA address filed in VIO (2 to 16 bytes, a compressed IPv6 Address. a *Via > Address indicates* the next hop towards the destination(s).....). > This need to be changed. > > > > <Pascal> > > Oups. Tired was I. I’ll fix and republish. Also removed the IANA on MOP > per your other mail, we need to discuss capability vs. MOP. And added the > missing IANA for the new stuff… > > </Pascal> > > > > All the best, > > Pascal > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >
- [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection… internet-drafts
- [Roll] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projec… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projec… rabi narayan sahoo
- Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projec… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-dao-projec… rabi narayan sahoo