Re: [Roll] Rplinfo WGLC

[Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>]

+1

Following are some comments tagged [RJ] (the numbered lines are from the
draft):
A.
674   | Removed   | --       | --            | IP-in-IP(RPI) | --         |
675   | headers   |          |               |               |            |
676   | Re-added  | --       | --            | --            | --         |
677   | headers   |          |               |               |            |
678   | Modified  | --       | --            | IP-in-IP(RPI) | --         |
679   | headers   |          |               |               |            |
680   | Untouched | --       | --            | --            | RPI        |
681   | headers   |          |               |               | (Ignored)  |
682   +-----------+----------+---------------+---------------+------------+
[RJ] Once the IP-in-IP(RPI) header is removed at 6LR_i … which is the other
IP-in-IP(RPI) header which gets modified ?

B.
[RJ] One of the side-effects of always inserting IP-in-IP RPI header at
6LR_1 (when the traffic originates at ~Raf) is that now all the packets
will go through the 6LBR even though there exists a shorter P2P path to the
destination 6LN in storing mode.
Consider the case where ~Raf sends a packets to 6LN (in RPL domain) and
6LR_i has a shorter P2P path to the 6LN ....

C.
967   +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
968   | Header        | 6LBR        | 6LR_i(i=1)    | 6LR_n(i=n)   | IPv6 |
969   +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
970   | Inserted      | (opt: RPI), | --            | --           | --   |
971   | headers       | RH3         |               |              |      |
972   | Removed       | --          | RH3           | --           | --   |
973   | headers       |             |               |              |      |
974   | Re-added      | --          | --            | --           | --   |
975   | headers       |             |               |              |      |
976   | Modified      | --          | (opt: RPI),   | (opt: RPI),  | --   |
977   | headers       |             | RH3           | RH3          |      |
978   | Untouched     | --          | --            | --           | RPI  |
979   | headers       |             |               |              |      |
980   +---------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------+
[RJ] Shouldn’t the RH3 be removed in 6LR_n column ?

D.
1040       | Re-added headers  | --   | --    | --   | --             |
1041       | Modified headers  | --   | RPI   | --   | --             |
1042       | Untouched headers | --   | --    | --   | RPI (Ignored)  |
1043       +-------------------+------+-------+------+----------------+
[RJ] RPI header should be shown in Untouched headers row for 6LBR column ?

E.
1216   | headers |             |      |              |       |             |
1217   | Modifie | --          | --   | --           | --    | --          |
1218   | d       |             |      |              |       |             |
1219   | headers |             |      |              |       |             |
1220   | Untouch | --          | --   | --           | --    | --          |
1221   | ed      |             |      |              |       |             |
1222   | headers |             |      |              |       |             |
1223   +---------+-------------+------+--------------+-------+-------------+
[RJ] Won’t RPI1 be modified in 6LR_ia and RPI2 be modified in 6LR_id ?

F.
1390   [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-dispatch] shows how the destination=root, and
1391   destination=6LN IP-in-IP header can be compressed down to {TBD}
1392   bytes.
[RJ] Don’t understand the relevance of this stmt here … it is already
mentioned that routing-dispatch will help compressing the headers… Based on
my understanding of routing-dispatch, it won’t be possible to come up with
a compression figure as to how many bytes can be reduced in the given
scenario of root—> 6LN routing.

Same comments could be found inline in the attached draft..

Regards,
Rahul

On 10 March 2017 at 11:52, peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Roll,
>
> Recently a new version of rplinfo has been submitted.
> Major change is to the security section.
> We like to do a WGLC before submitting the draft to IESG.
>
> Although many discussions took place, please, have a look at the draft and
> confirm your approval of this document.
> This WGLC ends at 24 March.
>
> Greetings, and thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter van der Stok
> vanderstok consultancy
> mailto: [e-mail]
> www: www.vanderstok.org
> tel NL: [phone]     F: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>