From nobody Fri Sep 25 15:46:55 2020 Return-Path: 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 81BE73A0A6F for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:46:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 NUuqYrH-7TG8 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F333A0A6E for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A353899E for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id llj2DTTJqA4y for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA4A3899D for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03ADB20 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:46:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks In-Reply-To: <51EFCCF8-A6AA-4E39-8DCE-B264CCDCD039@getmailspring.com> References: <51EFCCF8-A6AA-4E39-8DCE-B264CCDCD039@getmailspring.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Roll] Transit vs. Target in P DAO X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 22:46:54 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rahul Jadhav wrote: > But, wouldn't this mandate that only Global DODAG roots can initiate a > P-DAO request? > Isn't it currently possible for a local DODAG (with local > RPLInstanceID) root to initiate a P-DAO request? If yes, then the DAO > base object cannot be used as mentioned by you. And what about p2p-rpl (RFC6997)? Is there a place for P-DAO there? Or maybe I should ask this differently: doesn't P-DAO allow for cross-DODAG routing, as arranged by the root? A sort of PCE? Does this essentially eclipse the utility of p2p RPL? Does this local/global issue affect this? =2D- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl9uc1kACgkQgItw+93Q 3WUCwQgApWmuohmKG2V+8Gz0TKorvayGtmXiyOvaT+xSsyKpAgayoRC4VhMkRrYT hviS9GbjNxu96woqF/ksUR8lex8HJTTvk0mplFIHzgoze14Jj+XoitFP4VM1L2jx 9mGmj1BM7oNPT/+2crpxQ0EKd5iXMI/Llvh05lMUBRCQjTFvkveCGWg4ar8frLbV +Fmz4SHaLVBtkxgHJ4SHzjRQhcDFOhoU4qwPB91iQMVVPItFGOh5RuGoF1gBKSv1 PaYq8lxGjJWSqkr/KGdnpmB8NQwB+FLL1YSJdap31xYpuz20GJcOzE1Xy778B1H8 hAMBP867iefyN4A9DOzzVLnL8Cz13Q== =voos -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--