Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alvaro:

I read from the parallel thread that sharing MOP 4 between the 2 reactive versions of RPL would be OK.
I did not see a response from the authors so I’m cc’ing the draft .all list just in case.
We do not need to deprecate P2P RPL as long as it is never present in the same network as AODV RPL.
Maybe a  sentence in AODV RPL about that in the IANA section would help?

Keep safe;
Pascal

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Sent: mercredi 6 octobre 2021 12:59
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

[Added the draft name to the subject to benefit my filters. ;-) ]

Pascal:

Hi!

I asked the same question (about aodv-rpl replacing/obsoleting rfc6997) when I did my review [1] — more than two years ago!  But sadly received no real reply from the WG — so we moved ahead with the document as it is now.  Peter brought the question back in his IoT DIT review [2] earlier this year, but again no discussion from the WG.

It is clear to see that aodv-rpl uses some of the technology from rfc6997 and, as I understand it, a deployment would never include both.  The question then is valid and I would love to see more interest this time around.

Just FYI — there would need to be some process behind a move to formally replace rfc6997 (beyond updating the draft).  We can deal with that if we need to.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/XXaPFyhqiUS_bpYSJT45UaLyeec/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI/

On October 6, 2021 at 2:29:30 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:pthubert=[e-mail]>) wrote:
Dear all,

RPL AODV is close to completion, congrats to the authors!
Now, there’s the question of the MOP and 2 options, reuse the experimental one for P2P RPL, or take another.

Right now, the draft takes 5 and P2P has 4 (https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#mop)

My observation is that P2P is the experiment that leads to AODV, so AODV should deprecate it.

I have not heard of real deployments, and if that happened, I do not expect a mix of devices that would create confusion.
So would that be OK to assign MOP 4 to RPL AODV?

Note that we only have up to 6 to play with, and the multicast and anycast supports are already on the cooking table.

Keep safe,

Pascal

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll