Re: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10.txt

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

Hello Rahul 😊

Please find below inline answers. Also, I did not get any objection from 6lo so I added a IANA section that reduces the EARO status range to 0-63, which solves the issue you raised.



Regarding this statement,
"Non-Storing Mode DAO messages are used to signal external routes to
   the Root, even if the DODAG is operated in Storing Mode."

I couldn't find any text which provides reasoning to do so. Why non-storing mode DAO is needed and why storing mode DAO won't work?

Pascal> We need the address of the 6LR to terminate the tunnel and remove the artifacts, and the NS signaling will give us that. This is how we removed the hassle of hop by hop link local tunnels that was in the old useofrplinfo.

There is this text which says, "The Non-Storing Mode DAO messaging enables to advertise the 6LR that serves the RUL and injects the route to the Root." This can be achieved even with storing mode DAO with the target as RUL address and transit information containing parent address as anchor 6LR address.

Pascal > Which is not the normal storing mode signaling. It would be an hybrid. The cool thing with NS is that the external prefixes are not visible inside the RPL domain. Legacy nodes do not have to know they exist. Only the 6LR at the border that inject the external routes and the Root are aware and need to know about the new signaling. Using an hybrid impacts every node.

Trying to understand the reason because this mode of signaling has implications (already covered in the draft), particularly that, when the DAG is operating in storing mode, the communication to RUL from other RANs would mandatorily have to be routed through root only. If we use storing mode DAO then this could be optimized. Not sure if I am missing anything?

Pascal > Well, yes, we could have done that as well. The path could be optimized but
*  it would mean that the common parent has to encapsulate to the 6LR, which is an additional function there
* It would also mean that the network has ot be aware of external routes, which may be too many for the SM tables.

Pros and cons I guess. We went for the simple and backward compatible way.

Take care,

Pascal
________________________________
From: Roll <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:pthubert=[e-mail]>>
Sent: 12 March 2020 07:38 PM
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Roll] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10.txt

Dear all

As discussed with the IOT DIR, this draft is not the gating factor for all cluster C310.
In order to progress I made a full pass on it and fixed a few bugs and misalignments with useofrplinfo.

I believe the doc is ripe for WGLC.

Many thanks

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: jeudi 12 mars 2020 15:04
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael C. Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:           draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves
Revision:       10
Title:          Routing for RPL Leaves
Document date:  2020-03-12
Group:          roll
Pages:          32
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10<https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10>
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-10

Abstract:
   This specification extends RFC6550 and RFC8505 to provide unicast and
   multicast routing services in a RPL domain to 6LNs that are plain
   Hosts and do not participate to RPL, and enables the RPL Root to
   proxy the EDAR/EDAC flow on behalf of the RULs and RANs in its DODAG.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat


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