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

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 18 September 2020 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0EC3A08BA for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AYWJysVSoOpM for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ECAF3A084A for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7632A1F4A4; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:06:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 94D4E1A022D; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <>
Comments: In-reply-to "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <> message dated "Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:12:33 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 16:06:09 -0400
Message-ID: <103056.1600459569@dooku>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD Review of draft-ietf-roll-unaware-leaves-18
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:06:15 -0000

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <> wrote:
    >> (1) What is a RUL?
    >>  I assumed that a RUL would be a "plain" IPv6 node that is not aware
    >> of RPL  at all.  That definition would include, of course, not being
    >> aware of this  document...

    > Yes. I believe that is how we defined it.  The RUL is an IPv6 host
    > connected to RPL that does not speak RPL.

Alvero, we struggled with this a lot.

As Carsten said repeatedly, and I think worth repeating,  a plain IPv6 node
which is not aware of any RPL stuff at all would be... a *host*
  I tried at the time of RFC8504 (not, RFC8505!) to get our requirements into
  6man, but I didn't have the energy, and the reception was rather cold at
  the time.   I think people were exhausted from SRH debate on 8200.

So our definition of a RUL is any node that does not send a DAO on it's own.
Instead, it speaks RS/NS/ND, and yes, RFC8505 specifically.

    >>  The definition of a RUL starts in the Introduction with a simple
    >>  description: "RUL is an IPv6 Host [RFC8504]".

    > This was not meant to be a definition of a RUL but just one of its
    > characteristics.

-> IPv6 host is not necessarily a RUL.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [