Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Thu, 22 December 2011 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=3304ccdf4=mukul@uwm.edu>
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 6F35C21F8593; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4l7C0bEurgwZ; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C646721F84C5; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (HELO mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu) ([127.0.0.1]) by ip1mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2011 20:13:47 -0600
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB6312E3CD; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:13:47 -0600 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4klshojtMWTM; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:13:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBAC12E3CC; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:13:46 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:13:46 -0600
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Jonathan Hui <jonhui@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1603574399.729992.1324520026797.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <7A89D3D3-1DA6-4698-BC4A-B8AEBE397906@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.92]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>, ipv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:13:48 -0000

>Personally, I am OK changing the scope to a RPL routing domain rather than a RPL Instance.  If one really wants to limit to a RPL Instance, then they can also include a RPL Option.  This is what we originally had in rpl-routing-header-05.  This change was made late during the IESG review process.

I support this.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@cisco.com>
To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Cc: "roll WG" <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:22:11 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07


Personally, I am OK changing the scope to a RPL routing domain rather than a RPL Instance.  If one really wants to limit to a RPL Instance, then they can also include a RPL Option.  This is what we originally had in rpl-routing-header-05.  This change was made late during the IESG review process.

Jari, would you support reverting the scope of the RPL SRH to a RPL routing domain rather than a RPL Instance?

Thanks.

--
Jonathan Hui

On Dec 21, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:

> Jonathan
> 
> I described the problem in the message I sent just now. I think RPL Instance is not the correct scope for SRH. It has to be a RPL domain to be defined as we discussed some time back on the ROLL list.
> 
> Thanks
> Mukul
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@cisco.com>
> To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
> Cc: "roll" <roll@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:27:29 AM
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07
> 
> 
> Mukul,
> 
> As defined in the draft today, you cannot use a RPL routing header to cross RPL Instances.  My understanding is that roll-p2p-rpl makes use of local RPL instances.  Can you describe the issue you are concerned about?
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hui
> 
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:
> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> The IESG-approved draft refers to the RPL instance as the scope where the routing header can be used. How would this routing header be used for general source routing (across RPL instances) in an LLN? How would a node use this routing header if it wants to travel along a source route discovered using P2P-RPL?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>> 
>