Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Thu, 07 July 2016 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
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 DF89D12D0B2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 oiyW_l-x2n8K for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC3612D17B for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 04:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.212]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id FnJZ1t0024aYjWA01nJZTD; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:18:33 +0200
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-251-68.w92-133.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.133.142.68]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:18:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:18:32 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <e4d82623-86e1-efd7-b813-de4dedb2eaf8@gmail.com>
References: <b9e569f12a008245ef824e340f510dff@xs4all.nl> <e4d82623-86e1-efd7-b813-de4dedb2eaf8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4fad9a644c561d0a2f632edad1d4beb3@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (4OGv67COX3ELF6LpkgVO0iAwW0E9QVxv)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/s_szXr3EnPAa2wZhx2FrpN5nqS4>
Subject: Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 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: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:18:38 -0000

HI Cenk,

> There is the Transit Option for DAOs with the 'E' flag
> to indicate that the target address was not learned from rpl.
> I would expect that this 'E' flag is set for all Transit Options in 
> DAOs
> until it reaches the root node (recursively).
> So the root node should actually be aware which
> address was learned from RPL and which not.

It is probably worthwhile to describe (remind) in the draft this 
procedure for the root to learn RPL associated addresses.

Peter