Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] The "BEFORE" and "AFTER"

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 22 January 2016 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FF21ACD63; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:25:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 RDcHTh5enOxC; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:25:51 -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 9942C1ACD61; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:25:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1964; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1453451151; x=1454660751; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gXuv4Bz1+VpShy/at0ZaG+E/jH10AZlUOZRDWhILw8k=; b=Dnx5yF4BdBX6841V6MaXS95MRmiM0sAfyNb8LpthJHbLZdEm0OY3yYqB npke8PX5275XdMvC+cSQMinw9mleoqTWFDaVLGMFFIoI7kRmyT/MUitDu ccmtD5jYEuRcjJlWNFG8HbRE5SEyS01yYl4BvFXidnIhG6P155wB7opRL I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D5AQA/56FW/5FdJa1egzqBRYhRr26CEwENgWKGDwKBQDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEEBAQEDATo/BQsCAQg2EDIlAgQODYgLCL4mAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFYY1hHKJBgWWdwGNToFlhESDJ4Uwjj4BHgEBQoNmhxF8AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,329,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="66116495"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2016 08:25:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0M8PoVS008000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:25:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:25:50 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:25:50 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] [6tisch] The "BEFORE" and "AFTER"
Thread-Index: AQHRU1tqtnDmos6Mek2lEt0tEDasGp8EKL4QgACgQgD//7v5UIAB+rmA//+zLECAAJl3gIAAZudQ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:25:30 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:24:48 +0000
Message-ID: <f6b45b5b3c3546ee85a6ccf223b7afba@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAAdgstTwS5bSuRfLwh_ntf1MNek+nMR2wDOPjkuCedvpuJ3VwA@mail.gmail.com> <f49c3ea76c394235a690a0dee54cda12@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAAdgstTzq-d8X=Gxay3sTVXrE7eck=b3w92xsJh-ujxtVhdc7Q@mail.gmail.com> <f8d1f9064dcb4765b14d492038c1bb44@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <896.1453390339@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <413af1673df94cf485a03a3529503979@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <28648.1453406797@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <28648.1453406797@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/oBCaJFPsb8JI1O4VbRg_qEWBESY>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] [6tisch] The "BEFORE" and "AFTER"
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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, 22 Jan 2016 08:25:53 -0000

Hello Michael

Please see inline

> I think that we went through this in useofrpi....
> 
> I read the above sentence to say that the packet format is supposed to be:
>     IP2 RPI IP1 ULP
> 
> which means that the the IP2 must say "6LR" to "Root", which implies that
> the
> 6LR knows what the root is.   That's an unavoidable interaction between RPL
> and the IPv6 forwarding stack, and this is where I claim it's now about
> 6lowpan, but rather about mesh-over.

It is. The 6LR will have to decide which topology is used for that packet and encaps to the right root with the right RPI. This is no surprise. 

 
> I think that for a locally generated packet, a smart stack doesn't build those
> headers, but rather speaks directly to the 6LoRH part of the 6lowpan stack,
> and says:
>       IPsrc=ME, IPdst=THEM, RPLroot=him

Yes



> 
>     > The root adds IP in IP 6LoRH, the updated RPI and the RH3 6LoRH(s) but
> still
>     > the IPHC and whatever comes after it stay untouched.
> 
> The root removes the IP/RPI, and adds IP3/RH3. (We agreed that the RPI is
> perhaps unnecessary).  IP3 = RPL hop before "THEM", which root knows.
> 
> I will read the rest of the text.

The RPI is necessary to decide what the root is when the root is elided (at least if there is a possible confusion) I hope  that you'll find that the new text is clear on that.

About stack interaction, I see the compression of the root as a new instance of stateful compression:

With RFC6282, the state is provided to the stack by NDP, and NDP exchanges it through 6LoWPAN Context Option in RAs. In the compressed packet, the context is indexed by a Context Identifier Extension. 

With 6LoRH,  the state is provided to the stack by RPL, and NDP exchanges it through DODAGID in  DIO. In the compressed packet, the context is indexed by InstanceID in RPI. 

Cheers,

Pascal