Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 16 August 2014 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 52B441A0406; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] 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 ONpAKBMD8SwU; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3721A0404; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39E320029; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:10:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 75DA763AC9; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9A6638D6; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E864@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com> <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org> <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com> <CAP+sJUfDyNa=t=+C=QXy8MmvG9rAUxA0mTsXL7xSWAeLUR1qcQ@mail.gmail.com> <53EAA58D.4060401@gmail.com> <4C8FA2D5-7FD5-40A0-9D98-081BEC6A0480@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3BED8@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <E66DB157-B1C2-4BA4-B889-A15A6427DA3E@cs.stanford.edu> <0B8D48F9-8AAE-49F7-A2FA-A58963088814@gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E1E4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CE11CC16-DEBD-426D-BF52-CEFF927B127A@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E3D8@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <9051878F-04DC-4FAD-BE53-056826FD1070@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E864@xmb-rcd-x01 .cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
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<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:07:47 -0400
Message-ID: <18424.1408226867@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/sdkUCvipLixECDt5DEpgpN0S1gs
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:07:50 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > And my conclusion to 6MAN is that the changes of rules that are
    > requested in the draft are useful whether or not people are willing to
    > use the flow label as the transport for the RPL option inside the RPL
    > domain. Since this is the question on the table for 6MAN, I think that
    > the answer is now clearly a yes.

Should we split the issue up?
1) blessing/permission/exception to reset flow label within an LLN,
   (which would include simply setting it to zero so it can be compressed
   out)

2) a document on how to compress 6553 HbH into ?flow-label vs ?6lo-HC.

   I am not enthusiastic about multiple ways.
   We will have an existing problem of figuring out 6553 vs new-way,
   and also noting that some nodes will needed to continue to speak 6553
   on some links anyway (backhaul ethernet).


    >> it mentions ISA100.11a only in the introduction.)

My understanding is that ISA100.11a uses the flow label to pick a path,
but not in a way that involves rewritting it on each hop in the LLN.
Please correct me if I'm wrong; it seems that document (1) is needed to
retro-actively bless ISA100.11a usage :-)

[I'm writing this on a rainy Saturday afternoon, at a friend's house,
playing 1st Ed AD&D, and my two characters are unconcious... so when I use
the term "bless"... you'll understand the context]

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-