Re: [Roll] [Anima] on the use of RPL without RPI (was Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under)

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 14 April 2017 07:28 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 31506126BFD; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 4zNB7tVTzriz; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4AD2124234; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1883; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492154934; x=1493364534; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=O+YC+JyqzeaqZaNfrCY8LVQxGwLDTzYmIS9rgwn2xNg=; b=GYs5RaQxcUq2/S2bcjUUOe8Pnz+9FJ6kS21UNflXEKNRyD+5YgEsSTgn u664yiRDIjBuPQxA8lMjFe+t/jZjuDX8jqLZLvCiBO9YFRD6qZKOzkQA5 dXsAXb6UUsgnxTNHz6kNv1QRRcic4S9iEL4VJUfUKNZopRD7HO94f7DXi g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ABAgDSefBY/4kNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1OBbI17kVuIG41Bgg+CboImAYEPAoN8PxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBeQULAgEIGC4hESUCBA4FiX8DDQirLoczDYNTAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEehlGBXSuCbIJRggWDNIIxBZA0jCc7AY4fhESBf49HiGmCHokBAR84gQVbFVIBhEocGYFKdQGJOgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,197,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="409345909"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Apr 2017 07:28:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3E7SrQV001226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:28:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:28:52 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:28:52 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Anima] on the use of RPL without RPI (was Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under)
Thread-Index: AQHStGXXEuiW83Q8xEG2mD7sUEbmJqHDb9fggABjaYCAAFKFAIAAUvjC
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:28:52 +0000
Message-ID: <B8BA574A-EBC0-437A-BD0B-99C9E44C36D1@cisco.com>
References: <1491971619970.42705@ssni.com> <CD3480AD-3934-4C9E-B6F3-E399A32BACC8@tzi.org> <1491974218584.69073@ssni.com> <ae35261f3dac4a9fa123f33610bb9805@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <15236.1492095258@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <6ce1718ab83342bcad9c19d6d9e96935@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <6577.1492101395@obiwan.sandelman.ca>, <07e8d178-0545-5fe1-75a6-ecad449565ae@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <07e8d178-0545-5fe1-75a6-ecad449565ae@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/kqXMECil5fr-DyBynsVTlAnEi44>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [Anima] on the use of RPL without RPI (was Re: [6lo] Adaption of ROLL for mesh-under)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:28:56 -0000

Hello Brian

This is unspecified since prior to ACP there is always an RPI, thus the need to express it somewhere, which we did in the ANIMA spec; and the problem you raised has 2 sides.

Could be that nodes always expect an RPI and could be that they never do. Either way nodes may drop the packet in some default: case.

I think that what we have now at ANIMA works, and that a more complete specification would be useful for a more general case, explaining pro cons of using RPI and in which case mixed mode could work. Would ANIMA wish that ROLL publishes that doc?

Take care,

Pascal

> Le 13 avr. 2017 à 23:31, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
>> On 14/04/2017 04:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> ...
>> I also think we could in light of rfc2460bis renegotiation, argue for
>> insertion of RPI header by the ACP without IPIP encapsulation :-)
> 
> I wouldn't bet on that for a few more weeks yet. We do have a couple of
> mitigations however:
> 
> 1) Since the ACP is strictly using ULAs, we can assert that ACP packets
> are not intended for the open Internet. It would in fact be tragic for
> many reasons if an ACP packet "escaped".
> 
> 2) Since the ACP will be based on IPsec/ESP, we can assert that breaking
> IPsec/AUTH is not an issue.
> 
> However, we would also need a story on PMTUD within the ACP.
> 
>>> So all in all, considering the hassle of updating silicon along the
>>> forwarding plane, I'd think that living without RPI is fine. Now if you
>>> tell me that it is always going through software that is easy to
>>> update, then why not?
>> 
>> I think that this is the case.
> 
> Updating the ACP code network-wide, in a large network, might not be so easy.
> Ignorant question: what happens if only some RPL nodes support RPI?
> 
>   Brian