[Roll] route preference using an “administrative distance”
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32 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 2B42512012A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 23:32:46 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 header.b=KiXKWOJG; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=W4Z1X0cP
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 CsL5eKv_edEj for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 23:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EBEB1200D6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 23:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4531; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558593164; x=1559802764; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=HyttP0XYlALVxrRaLRGjk+gXjGq4G+CNiGjgf2RCbBI=; b=KiXKWOJGpOo993xQ02+5r75QEVUCRalBPlULIQxjXP7s1iQ7Y1og3iRw brS7dtZJZG54BAKAwcjiO/LqeBU3Z10TcW0B1bqNYFlrMbaA6wj2iVSkX /wz7n6iu+889GiLJ6L0Ph0KYwox4CPRRdkCRM2I5VXmEzcc8SKaShWpGT 8=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:BK2XRxepRVsgTbdaRNNp0WOclGMj4e+mNxMJ6pchl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwGQD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFnpnwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/dzA6Ac5PTkNN9HCgOk8TE8H7NBXf
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BoAABbPeZc/51dJa1lHQEBBQEHBQGBUQgBCwGBDi9QA2lVIAQLKAqHUAOEUoojSpFpgn2EUIEuFIEQA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAoIxIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQRtHAyFYxsTAQE4EQEMdCYBBBsagwGBHU0DHQECmnwCgTeIX4IggnkBAQWFDhiCDwmBNAGLUBeBQD+BEUaHFjqDOoImkmGVWwkCgg2Kc4F/hjGWNqI9AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOIFXcBWDJ4IPg3CKU3KBKYwSAYEgAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,501,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="551394496"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 May 2019 06:32:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4N6WhJa003076 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:43 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:32:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:32:41 -0500
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 23 May 2019 01:32:41 -0500
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=KMOpFw7hH0yFPH1WDrJBpgUS9j4/TE6tS09rsRHUqEo=; b=W4Z1X0cP7BwTJrWuicJvliNwOla9IsbDc+AD/YOA/6z71TYQ8/XNfDIEK9pMGRa5HkY2TZ8YjJ3ZUpDOhXLPxODeC6Kr/nWKCBBxODWVlr5hkNfzzis9Ib9tlnaJn9brvDnvEAb1aEjpjwOQ3IzsX95IettyMbx8LTw5/2AKBks=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB4157.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.179.150.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.17; Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:41 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7cc2:b440:8820:f0fc]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7cc2:b440:8820:f0fc%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.020; Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:41 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: route preference using an “administrative distance”
Thread-Index: AdURMLsz7MB5DepSQUWesOpKyKub1w==
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:16 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:31:49 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB35659BC47BDEB520A71BA473D8010@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.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: [173.38.220.43]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a4b53c7e-0528-4cd0-3831-08d6df487506
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB4157;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4157:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB4157C9B93D8DD402D8AEBBAFD8010@MN2PR11MB4157.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 00462943DE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(33656002)(81166006)(81156014)(8936002)(25786009)(4743002)(74316002)(6436002)(4744005)(6306002)(54896002)(9686003)(52536014)(5660300002)(55016002)(53936002)(66556008)(66446008)(7736002)(64756008)(66946007)(476003)(66476007)(6666004)(68736007)(73956011)(316002)(14454004)(486006)(76116006)(2906002)(6916009)(6506007)(86362001)(7696005)(14444005)(256004)(26005)(478600001)(186003)(3846002)(6116002)(66066001)(790700001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(102836004)(99286004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4157; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: vHN+pXVJtsFkvLTxlxxaFIbSMHzv0odO7q0ToHVFNB6BsVQMTq5GgLbX2XrJ6kDUqwAmbul58FXe7TfsSr0318h7mKGaCx2fE2rwCer59lnJdTtElbDsJg/yuo6xiWDp9fdTKRf2XqEE3BFKAQpJ1meAW6GiPNe8lLL+3Cj11UCtJr2oycn4HFeL29RmVKCWZ6G/BNahBIQM55PT0HJmAKY3KHqKT52Hu2Xorxy2f5bOD9TkVl7QSwp42Tb50Cip8obPGAIltcmAEGawa8/6jLTrBnOgHCDnqHbu+zWInkhyeZ3Z62xczyyOC3Swk/+mrTe9sXm6nZyoCiuDXGtlYJXZUV//l+9VMfSCDv3LV0n4oAmF3bXVv7UWUEgOKhJiIdiT+cNzE6QKEASSN/Jc5GDbR37DwHpxdDKg0Ta9Vvg=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB35659BC47BDEB520A71BA473D8010MN2PR11MB3565namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a4b53c7e-0528-4cd0-3831-08d6df487506
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2019 06:32:41.2455 (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-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4157
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/p4f7HAvKdEolStZx7uA1gs225tQ>
Subject: [Roll] route preference using an “administrative distance”
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: Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:46 -0000
Dear all The general idea in PDAO is that a projected route has precedence over a same route obtained from the distributed instance but the “administrative distance” involved in that process is not really specified. We could also use text to indicate that longest match wins against “administrative distance”. My question is: should we indicate the “administrative distance” in the PDAO or keep it all implicit? Implicit saves space but implies that all P Routes have the same “administrative distance”, which is better than all distributed instances. Maybe we’re losing an important capability by not signaling the “administrative distance”. Note that a same “administrative distance” could be placed in the DIO configuration in order to set the precedence between routes obtained from several instances, and projected routes. My suggestion is to write a small draft on that. What do you think? Pascal
- [Roll] route preference using an “administrative … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)