Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 29 February 2016 13:35 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 3619D1A903E for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:35:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 XmV6LIhxrtBo for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:35:44 -0800 (PST)
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 85B0A1A8BB3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:35:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1456752944; x=1457962544; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SIJPuX5LdyXYjKQxl+3la6a3/k+Z9gD2fssVMkNlf6c=; b=JXQKijSvz7+u73f3gdv62VZeKvSWrO45VqkM4lvU/+uTAg1eCExYJXhE WsSAP7BbEAkVgN3jx1/voCBE8tHEH5taRxlKLypcaLmodZ0fZBHY5gEeS qrG+7hAkX7KBdKI/smK71JN82qmje4xGvws0zKHo6WUUWF8VLZLGJBK6x A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AOAgCWSNRW/4oNJK1egzqBPwa6ZQENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WeCXYM2AoExOBQBAQEBAQEBZCeEQQEBAQSBBQQCAQgRBAEBAScHMhQJCAIEEwi?= =?us-ascii?q?IF75cAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIYShDqEGYRWBY1jiSkBjVqOe45JAR4BA?= =?us-ascii?q?UKDZGqHRX4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,520,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="81451140"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 29 Feb 2016 13:35:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1TDZhYG027131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:35:43 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:35:43 -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; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:35:42 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
Thread-Index: AQHRb9qeL4f1KCPGMkGwLsdNoV8BL59DDACA
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:35:38 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:35:15 +0000
Message-ID: <98b394ec95df4457b3dd8472fa4a46fe@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <068.083c7610ff2ac4904b0f3d42985de0e5@trac.tools.ietf.org> <083.ab1b0b92eb7919631cac4e82fc5f8d77@trac.tools.ietf.org> <9111.1456113115@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <d88ab77865404790b206a61381099b4d@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <19270.1456411279@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <19270.1456411279@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: [10.228.42.190]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/pIFar97wENsejqiGGYhXbiQU1xM>
Subject: Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
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: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:35:46 -0000

Agreed, Michael.

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: jeudi 25 février 2016 15:41
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Roll] how to solve flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-
> leaf
> 
> 
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>     > The change Nb2 reverses a decision that makes sure that if a packet
>     > with an HbH header / RPI escapes the RPL domain, it is immediately
>     > discarded. This impact has to be weighted.
> 
> It would only be discarded if the receiving machine does not speak RPL/RPI.
> If by chance, it does understand that header, then would not discard it by
> 2460 rule.  It could be configured to drop packets with RPI in them.
> 
> So the protection isn't that great in my opinion, while the cost is pretty
> significant.   But, I agree that it's a concern.
> 
> We have the opportunity in 6LoRH to effectively make other incompatible
> changes since deploying 6LoRH will be an incompatible change.
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>