Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Wed, 07 October 2020 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 082CA3A0D37 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:21:44 -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 u5eC_yJ7cJzS for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:21:42 -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 034C73A0CCE for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44027389DF for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:27:03 -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 QQB0PhL0QJqa for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A0D38994 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9857F5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:21:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565771702FEF558F337BB87D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESszw4SuUQtchiqk-o7Z=62X+U2af4==X5S_=rJ-3y4Dn=w@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB356593481245BC85A03D4003D83F0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxgYifi+U=fTdFk5Fz+a1ArbFUzxBbeDeORhk30n2N3Ew@mail.gmail.com> <29990.1602008535@localhost> <CAMMESsx88Xj1Zb8cC8Y6QSfsYvpANAh4ONjaOyCMf0XvKh893w@mail.gmail.com> <24976.1602030932@localhost> <MN2PR11MB35655B010613D0A1C852F203D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR11MB3565771702FEF558F337BB87D80A0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.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<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 13:21:38 -0400
Message-ID: <32377.1602091298@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/v4p5RoVjfJEMC2Ee4ViQGY3IoRw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <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: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:21:44 -0000

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    >    [USEofRPLinfo] introduces the terms RPL-Aware-Leaf (RAL) and RPL-
    > Unaware Leaf (RUL).  A RAL is a Leaf that injects Host routes in RPL to
    > manage the reachability of its IPv6 addresses.  Conversely, a RUL does
    > not participate to RPL and cannot inject routes.  Section 5 details a
    > Host-to-Router interface that the RUL needs to implement to advertise
    > its IPv6 addresses to a Router that supports this specification.  The
    > document specifies how the Router injects those addresses as Host
    > Routes in the RPL network on behalf of the RUL.

I would go on with two additional paragraphs:

  An RAL is an RPL router node that just happens to have no children, either by
  design (e.g., it sleeps too much to be useful), or circumstance.

  An RUL could connect to any mesh network that supports RFC8505, even if it
  operates with a mesh protocol other than RPL.  Assuming of course that the
  physical layers were compatible: radios types, frequencies, scheduling, etc..


Maybe this is beating people over the head, but I think, in the introduction,
that's okay.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [