Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 09:37 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 3F3F3120887 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:37:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=F+2r6dgj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=iDJQI54D
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 AAFvfLiSySiN for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 432D4120811 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:37:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2460; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1576057052; x=1577266652; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mU7GKvmX9muvYXb97+6J31hBzh0abY0xmURzgjp85tU=; b=F+2r6dgjBee5sOLiNdPPWY6hr9PuOc1z0Rjh/2+UMbg1y+LQ6HbqVUB4 OGhqndI7EPpeK7JLVQXW7lIDQErmIdercxSTZtPxlbie+8erQBthxl4o6 fe9qFd6LtNDt46yw2MgfGYgpcbT54kpZ4k/nzKyEeD7xu7F1BFRWseTQi o=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AH5//Lx1jJlGUUt+MsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44?= =?us-ascii?q?YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxKGt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8RVgOIdJSw?= =?us-ascii?q?dDjMwXmwI6B8vQEVH7MfTndTASF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CjDgCyt/Bd/49dJa1lHgELHINJKSc?= =?us-ascii?q?FbFggBAsqCoc/A4sIToIRmAaCUgNUCQEBAQwBARgLCgIBAYRAAoIFJDgTAgM?= =?us-ascii?q?NAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FNwyFXgEBAQEDAQEQLgEBLAwLBAIBCBEEAQEvJwsdCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EEwgagwGCRgMuAQIMoVUCgTiIYYIngn4BAQWFIRiCFwMGgTaMGBqBQT+BEUe?= =?us-ascii?q?BTlAuPoJkAQGBQwEBAh6DQIIsln+XaQqCL5YLgkKMN4tChD+kPwIEAgQFAg4?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQWBaSKBWHAVO4JsUBEUjGaBJwEIgkOFFIU/dIEoi1SBIgGBDwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,301,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="682674652"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 Dec 2019 09:37:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xBB9bUSX023059 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:37:30 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:37:29 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:37:29 -0600
Received: from NAM02-SN1-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 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:37:29 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Ce9LIb5RvkOIuwxf8lHFC/CZ0SnyCRMplxkYahWH4nZi/1ROzCkHms/B8xh8UjX04DDW6cE5iM+cBgrXrVOX8Ux4+tPWhZXp7a3btKqL+yzH93FM/WI8YJZvqPmHWhM+0Mb326Q3AEwen2oRs7/ZhtsT5Gza6RzA8CHL7RFUUMVttfrWhCC7Y5Ek9tPyaV1WpxGsHjF3u5M94nlPOc1sz4m7MKD5Lp2Phtg65SAjrIx14GgcqrNcBXFQs4MPtPWIHtHXvmg8OBx+w7baSeiA7kAyscDf06F6AcK4Mulyc9JpLZYVaySgV4bfMAJ4dY48j77gAT5eZxdh2EL/x8+j3A==
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=mU7GKvmX9muvYXb97+6J31hBzh0abY0xmURzgjp85tU=; b=CWY08Cc9F0ct2UhBe68LFY/aLIGrN13YPbhM+3TUbJfKEQ2qOnfMWB9r3eE/NS/21rivZ79lrSNER3NYqAAjKornjs1icfw6pilZIBwES7lA4GiSpNIJuHu32ZwtxYFHVhYltFr+kxiH1Fmbat3rP9ALwy2WPCX1cjn91QudJlJYMk0XEC/uyb4nY0MHIlZ2X3D8s3HE0/ck9ojUfp0fV1DGXJl+Sz4m00+QzHvr/mYrSZGsv7WykAbfSRm3r7hEUE2hseMuRKMhlD07iGXKAJQDy63Y0fgfaeSw5uUIeM1WWTc6DKuB8qsanvh2ep01PR4fB7XCCehgmRzfHxlUDA==
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=mU7GKvmX9muvYXb97+6J31hBzh0abY0xmURzgjp85tU=; b=iDJQI54DM83a7uQRbTYkJfDw3dtfTQWL0S9HJnLK/k3QG/GbOzyupuy5NG8APl2/Ov2d4UYiGjmb31jIM46ui+CZCR6Jlf+btmYrW7XKL5jlNxkRPHT0pYRNyGw6RkbZJzye648Z3v3iFGtgNUUISrf09doNCG7B8a1I8isuVvQ=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.206.75) by BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.239.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2538.15; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:37:28 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5b0:1702:87b:b1e]) by BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5b0:1702:87b:b1e%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2516.018; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:37:28 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
Thread-Index: AQHVr3fvJ5t/IdocAUKcd9xxFkggo6e0HhiAgACNs/A=
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:36:13 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:35:35 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB3558F535DAD84DE4FA28EFE5D85A0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAO0Djp1K18CGXv+YC9H4qgCgyH=fkon4ihFAUmgfKwdYQy38dQ@mail.gmail.com> <10903.1575995773@localhost> <CAO0Djp0tv2Er-SnX8ky+K=7xvRpNn03Bq+1PtTvRA1C-Vs5+iw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp0tv2Er-SnX8ky+K=7xvRpNn03Bq+1PtTvRA1C-Vs5+iw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.61]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7baad708-5fda-4b63-724b-08d77e1dbce5
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB3687:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB3687DCED65D3EA2D88FD2B91D85A0@BYAPR11MB3687.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 024847EE92
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(55674003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(81156014)(81166006)(66946007)(71200400001)(66446008)(316002)(66476007)(8676002)(478600001)(186003)(53546011)(66556008)(6506007)(64756008)(66574012)(26005)(52536014)(76116006)(6666004)(966005)(8936002)(86362001)(5660300002)(2906002)(33656002)(7696005)(6916009)(9686003)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB3687; H:BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7baad708-5fda-4b63-724b-08d77e1dbce5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Dec 2019 09:37:28.2910 (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: cR3sd108//TfA3u7cy+9EoavyMxDmkyUKtgoDJ6LrCpfko3dZg200u9TwaT0XFrRGYrEJJSNNSGEhBL12OmrXQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB3687
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/kkBypQldYt9S-Ll49gI7gqJ-i8A>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:37:35 -0000

Sorry my mail went out unfinished

We must fix the 130 bug and Rahul's checking with the ML makes great sense.

The Ockham's razor of the day is probably energy conservation. We have a RPL status that uses 8 bits and has no value defined. We need to transport the EARO status to map between RPL and ND (for RUL and BBR). Should we insert a new field or merge the RPL and ND status. So far we went from the merge. Initially it was a mapping but Alvaro's review made us change that. Now it is an implicit transport of ND status inside RPL status, with the caveats that Rahul points out, mostly that the RPL status only has 6 bits to transport the EARO status that is 8 bits at this moment.

My suggestion to solve this is to reduce the size of the EARO status on the next occasion, which will free 2 bits for ND use in the EARO, and in the meantime ensure that values > 63 are not assigned at IANA review. We can write a quick fix at 6lo if that helps feel better.

Al the best,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Rahul Jadhav
> Sent: mercredi 11 d├ęcembre 2019 02:01
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
> 
> > Is this RFC8505 section 9.4, ARO Status Values?
> > I can't find ND status in 8505 :-)
> 
> [RJ] I was referring to Table 1 in Section 4.1 but I guess the table in Section 9.4 is
> the same. But yes, these are indeed ND (E)ARO status codes. Sorry for the
> confusion.
> 
> > I re-read section 7 of unaware leaves, but I'm afraid I'm having
> > difficulties knitting all the pieces together.
> 
> [RJ] I think the 'A' bit in section 7 which says that the RPL status is originated
> from ND EARO is the central point here. ND is using RPL's base object Status field
> to propagate its status.
> RPL Status field is getting used as of now in, DAO-ACK [RFC6550] and DCO
> [efficient-route-invalidation draft].
> My reason to start this discussion was to clarify the intersection between
> ND/RPL to WG and the conclusion of this discussion will lead to another mail
> wherein I would like to propose final changes to DCO's Moved status value
> (which is currently 130).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll