Re: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-01.txt

"Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com> Tue, 22 October 2019 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <liz3@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 030DB120041 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
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=DOE7ynZG; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=OZrugWy8
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 gWMNRo1giXDy for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86DB512002E for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8134; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1571743600; x=1572953200; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SDcYEdeOpHZ2Qs1sIAdW+8s+6hf19ETK+UpvcIlZkGY=; b=DOE7ynZGBXr0dtsBzTBSBXgMdVXUsIjvhu+wJg3wqcFgcwDkrf0rUkom PlAbIXksooQ4+rR9qcHLJSaN8V492Hoc8nUPeBcF/Pi85DQTaCTi7cwTB OXeId7e94sR8fIwy7vRS5R5uTa+ylxH+jETn9/yQGVIEqZjCyNykgrxPN o=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AmEMenhJH2ym96/4pIdmcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4Z?= =?us-ascii?q?M7irVIN76u5InmIFeCuKd2lFGcW4Ld5roEkOfQv636EU04qZea+DFKa5lQT1?= =?us-ascii?q?kAgMQSkRYnBZuBCF+gBPXrdCc9Ws9FUQwt8g=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ARAADG5q5d/5xdJa1lGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYFnBQEBAQELAYFKJCwFbFcgBAsqCoQcg0cDhFi?= =?us-ascii?q?GAE2CD36XBYEugSQDVAkBAQEMAQEYCwoCAQGEQAIXgxMkNAkOAgMJAQEEAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEFBG2FNwyFSwEBAQECAQEBDAQREQwBASMJCQMLBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CJQsVCAgCBBMigwABgkYDDiABAgymOAKBOIhhdYEygn4BAQWFCBiCFwMGgQ4?= =?us-ascii?q?oAYUVhnmCF4ERJx+BTkk1PoJiAQGBRRwHECECglYygiyBPQGOOo5sjn4GBII?= =?us-ascii?q?klSYbgjuHU4Qthl+ENKd9AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFSOYFYcFAqAXOBTlAQFIMGCRo?= =?us-ascii?q?VgzuFFIU/dIEpjUcBgSMBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,326,1566864000"; d="scan'208";a="362467049"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Oct 2019 11:26:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (xch-rcd-016.cisco.com [173.37.102.26]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9MBQc8q016765 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:26:38 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-RCD-016.cisco.com (173.37.102.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 06:26:38 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 06:26:38 -0500
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 06:26:37 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FdydBqFKStv1pqqfB4Dg53AO1CNYdP7k+rrCOu/RDlIK/tqs3qEsa7YOmuZkbZtdWYob9wOUS1sfCt1PeT7LD2d031jBO7ilSdt1Y1A+LshVVoeYoE4/Jg4Ajw96UPPwA458pH/dcXK2S84F7SbtCFjLGjg2wxCUjEEZCBRkGWqAoDtxejtaj/ctt9ggxWD06iUs0qmPRP4iY/cbUBI6RbZytuG+MdoUabEyHj8HJumy9rqR5Ms9X81joSeR8LEGWoOnBlJqEV35ZiHTQU4gICtLvucGL2u9h0WnXsbIwaRA6ZH7Qlzw3XeKM3LPKIkCRUujs6Q2MD50DPjFo1CGYw==
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=SDcYEdeOpHZ2Qs1sIAdW+8s+6hf19ETK+UpvcIlZkGY=; b=KHNoyId6n+Jw1OkS+gC1PAI2SPBHAEJl31f7IVu3gnAfCcRN0R1sWCD2BbTxMpuw7fqptEwui73IK68oxpj3EgXGvm3THzRIZABGqykIYPPmbKb43GxRU1ou82mt0SrSQHqvlJgKH15izaSfELW1/Rmj4lTKMxPUKDHwpBtKg7vMm/QGKaesdaIRCGjmlBLGsNIsIFXkrqDNuPdC5++5WHtMqkRQ71THg/lFnoyjPEhBrXf09XR0qGbb+5/laLmFeQYzBoRPkdv97+pvvdr7U7/OgPVp0no6m8WpgaHBDRbpf3bXRQ5mBpcePXBiCzFyNBnW2k4CON47WU1TCyDSmA==
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=SDcYEdeOpHZ2Qs1sIAdW+8s+6hf19ETK+UpvcIlZkGY=; b=OZrugWy8a9/ct29lHyUHatEuEyh7gpwdGoMhF4sL7HoxrOhn9TyiSt57VKfvwh0cdOA3LSVW3b1nF0qlHwIgACGFrMDO50KmExC/dSjJ5HRjTwhFwcgOjf3NqeVfEquvyRfnXsQRiNkDrPrkIdrYaLvICRt+7tpaahcZEyFZlC8=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.218) by MN2PR11MB3887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.181.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2347.16; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:26:36 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dd72:5dc0:87bc:2a8e]) by MN2PR11MB3680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dd72:5dc0:87bc:2a8e%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2347.029; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:26:36 +0000
From: "Li Zhao (liz3)" <liz3@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHVhWPlvolp6YcUTEixv+i6F591iKdgEgGggAToGAD//9YaYIABq+aA//+0ZACAACu44IAAtj0A
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:26:36 +0000
Message-ID: <55994E79-0BF7-4ADD-B17F-3FAC01A35196@cisco.com>
References: <29223591-193D-46D5-8EE1-0C93C84FABB6@cisco.com> <657F6717-C1BF-47B9-B5CF-7CC543286ACE@cisco.com> <MN2PR11MB356505C7BD4992374FEA50FCD8680@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB356505C7BD4992374FEA50FCD8680@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=liz3@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [64.104.125.225]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f1724696-7c63-4ab2-d2b3-08d756e2b341
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3887:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB38877DA2307CC37B21131A698C680@MN2PR11MB3887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 01986AE76B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(136003)(396003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(6116002)(2906002)(66574012)(3846002)(66946007)(5660300002)(66556008)(81156014)(36756003)(8676002)(8936002)(86362001)(33656002)(64756008)(316002)(81166006)(14444005)(76116006)(91956017)(71190400001)(71200400001)(66476007)(66446008)(486006)(66066001)(6306002)(102836004)(6512007)(76176011)(25786009)(53546011)(256004)(6916009)(478600001)(14454004)(7736002)(186003)(446003)(11346002)(6246003)(476003)(966005)(2616005)(26005)(6486002)(99286004)(229853002)(15650500001)(305945005)(6506007)(6436002)(88722002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3887; H:MN2PR11MB3680.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: qzrYcVd4YGWiTXKon9R9QICCzdw+K7aezGeTFKgziwMQ+WW0pzqHd7wMNXKfv8WaIeugJhyqlyyxiHdVk3UjkVZ7YO6KvBjPHW6JNQf8cCrEntZxT2iw0KQOc4UHp+DPTPsuUy/L4DAKxBR6KUDTYqpwYWIwT56OBO9bszTOY5bWiQnilqcuTfDYYrcQqn3KQjSKF3UIANzIWAa3haWyu0ixR96O3BSbB9GjZPz2oGgLI85ZyfGvFEUmUPW1Qw85nzK7+436LHzwEWB18zvxvXEqPEW6DZZabmMUhFsnbqupocsHPeOUQ0rExYQRa5503d9s8g4zjRYSwOgN4yL/AdEH8jH3/cW65u2pk/U0zE/+DQuDmquf/Z2Cxx34qHpISv3rMRy0aTSaaI+RXP+PtTaBSTL3gQfvcBB5JJd9gZo2pAIJ49kz4Y2mjGM0UYsLWbCJRQi+WX75/igNQCYZ6g==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3CCAA1BE0B61674F973C03AA5145C05D@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f1724696-7c63-4ab2-d2b3-08d756e2b341
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Oct 2019 11:26:36.4518 (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: 6lS0wdEstGq4/nI04wbTJja8MB1qNBQVhEXTBKD72HMertvJl+d2f8cbM8xLgqNk
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3887
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.26, xch-rcd-016.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/lPRls9Qi1SzB7-Csn2-BjKIdLQ4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-01.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: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:26:43 -0000

Hello Pascal,

Agree with you.
We can use AOO with last Modification DAO sequence to elide all options in DAO. In this case, we can ignore the Abbreviated Option field or set it to 0xFF. Which do you prefer?

For the DAO lost case, even in normal DAO case, node has the risk of lost DAO message. Node should set 'K' flag according to different network environment. 
It should also work in DAO-AOO case. Admin can balance the risk of lost DAO message and 4-bytes DAO-ACK load.


Best regards,
Li

On 2019/10/22, 16:53, "Roll on behalf of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <roll-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

    Hello Again Li:
    
    I looked at it and an simple step could be that when a node receives a DAO-ACK for a given DAO sequence, then if the next DAO has the same content the node may reuse the DAO sequence and elide the options. It may also decide not refrain from asking an ack, at the risk that the DAO is lost and the state times out at the DAO receiver.
    
    All the best;
    
    Pascal
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Roll <roll-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
    Sent: mardi 22 octobre 2019 07:58
    To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
    Subject: Re: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-roll-eliding-dio-information-01.txt
    
    Hello Li
    
    Would be great!
    
    The xml is available on github under roll-wg.
    My expectation is that the source of the non storing DAO increases a sequence nb when there is a change and abbreviates it when there is none. 
    
    You need to think of what happens when the updated DAO is lost, eg MUST an ack or something and only abbreviate after a positive DAO ACK...
    
    Regards,
    
    Pascal
    
    > Le 22 oct. 2019 à 04:29, Li Zhao (liz3) <liz3@cisco.com> a écrit :
    > 
    > Hello Pascal,
    > 
    > It looks good if router always need these options. And if a node wants to act as a leaf, it can only request R/D/P.
    > 
    > I'm interested and it's my pleasure to add some sections for AOO-DAO. I'll send it to you later.
    > 
    > 
    > Best regards,
    > Li
    > 
    > On 2019/10/21, 17:58, "Roll on behalf of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <roll-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > 
    >    Hello Li (and all, please read on as there are additional things we could be doing with the draft listed below)
    > 
    >    Let's see below
    > 
    >    [Li] Do you mean that child should know ALL option type it needs before select the parent? E.g. one child need R/D/P/M/O to join network but another child only need R/D/P.
    >    So how does child know this info? Is it pre-defined in child?
    > 
    >    <Pascal> The draft assumes that all R/D/P/M/O are always present and always needed. This seems to be the general case. We can make it so that one option would not be present by indicating in the DIO if you think that case is relevant. Please let me know. 
    > 
    >    But how will a child know that it does not need an option that is present? Maybe there is something in there that is mandatory to know, e.g., to act as a router. We could say that a node that does not pull all the options can only act as a leaf. Is that what you have in mind?
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >        2. Is AOO necessary? If DIO can fragment options and don't always send all options, can we use DIO without options to indicate the AOO? 
    >            The shortest DIO Base Object without DODAGID is only 8 bytes.
    > 
    >     <Pascal> AOO is RECOMMENDED to elide the option. A DIO an option elided (no option, no abbreviation) and an unchanged RCSS is perfectly OK. But if an option is elided AND the RCSS is incremented then after a reasonable time-out the children will pull the options to check if they changed and the parent will need to send either the AOO or the option in full or both in which case the RCSS of the AOO wins. It is always possible to place the option in full without a AOO but if it is done with an increased RCSS in the DIO that will mechanically increase the "RCSS of the option" as seen by the children and will cause the whole subdag to pull the option to no avail. 
    > 
    >     [Li] Agree, AOO is better than DIO with no option. It’s a nice abbreviated mechanism for RPL Control Message.
    >           Can we consider to extend AOO for DAO? Maybe put AOO in a new Control Message Options, then DIO/DAO can both leverage it.
    >           In some case, child will send large DAO packet to parent periodically. E.g. 1. child notifies its capability to parent .2 child has several RPL Target or Transit Information (storing mode?).
    > 
    >    <Pascal> Yes we could. Say that the content of a non-storing DAO is fully stable, it could be all replaced by a sequence. Would you be interested in adding that?
    > 
    >    If we have to abbreviate elements therein, per target, then we still need to indicate the target so we'll save little, and a different technique like indexing the targets with a BIER bit, would be more efficient.
    > 
    > 
    >    Many thanks again and again Li, for your excellent comments.
    > 
    >    Pascal    
    >    _______________________________________________
    >    Roll mailing list
    >    Roll@ietf.org
    >    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > Roll mailing list
    > Roll@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
    _______________________________________________
    Roll mailing list
    Roll@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
    _______________________________________________
    Roll mailing list
    Roll@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll