Re: [Roll] [roll] #173 (useofrplinfo): Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

"roll issue tracker" <> Fri, 19 February 2016 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1BF1B29D5 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:53:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkcF6U-fjH2W for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40FE71AD09F for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:45492 by with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <>) id 1aWkZC-0007Z4-RT; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:53:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "roll issue tracker" <>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:53:50 -0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 173
In-Reply-To: <>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #173 (useofrplinfo): Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:53:52 -0000

#173: Example of Flow from RPL-aware-leaf to non-RPL-aware-leaf

Comment (by

 Pascal said: “Yes

 We have to define the support for the non RPL leaf. This needs a different

 My expectation is that the draft would indicate that the non RPL leaf is
 known by the 6LR through 6LowPAN ND with 6BBr extension (for the sequence

 IMHO, whether in storing or not storing, it would be good that the 6LR
 injects a DAO with self as transit with the external (E) bit set and the
 leaf address as target. So the other nodes know. So that in non-storing
 the root terminated the RH3 at the last router.

 Routing will take the packet back to that 6LR. The 6LR should strip the
 6LoRH, which is easy in the compressed format.

 But stripping is illegal unless there’s an IP in IP. So the problem is
 really the IP conformance. One way to solve that is to say that there is
 an implicit IP in IP from link local to link local in front of any 6LoRH.”

 Reporter:                           |       Owner:          |
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  useofrplinfo             |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |

Ticket URL: <>
roll <>