IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 27 December 2019 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 BC63212004F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 22:28:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 EAqruCZxOwtp for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 22:28:18 -0800 (PST)
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 A8F7412002F for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 22:28:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A862A3897B for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 01:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6109460A for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 01:28:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp0XEM+h366FhOA5BtCGaa+R=aLz2CJyUSysPKMrJG9gnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO0Djp1K18CGXv+YC9H4qgCgyH=fkon4ihFAUmgfKwdYQy38dQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB35657EDC8F8FBF9EB5359A57D85B0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <25979.1576604888@localhost> <MN2PR11MB356572131554810FF88AC01ED8500@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAO0Djp0XEM+h366FhOA5BtCGaa+R=aLz2CJyUSysPKMrJG9gnA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 01:28:17 -0500
Message-ID: <9584.1577428097@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/x-cMcg9lG9U5A11Icj6AJNAh-LQ>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Unaware-leaves - ND-Status and RPL-Status linkage
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: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 06:28:21 -0000

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > > You mean that we could change the ND status to 6-bits in the 6lo
    >> WG?  > (I would have parsed ND status as being someing 6man takes care
    >> of)
    >> 
    >> Yes, or mandate that the 64 first Status values are reserved for stuff
    >> that could be carried in RPL
    >> 

    RJ> Wondering how such a mandate would work. IF we do it this way,
    RJ> future extensions to ND ARO status need to consider whether they are
    RJ> applicable to RPL and define accordingly. This implies familiarity in
    RJ> 6lo/6MAN with RPL.

    > I prefer the other approach where we restrict the ND ARO status to
    > 64bits itself. Anyways using 128 bits in the future seems far-fetched
    > (as indicated by Pascal before). But to limit ND ARO status to 64bits
    > we need to convince the 6lo/6MAN group that "because of RPL" we need to
    > reduce the size. I am not sure if this is easy to digest!

I thought that we had 6-bits to store 64-values, while ND has 8-bits to store
256 values.  Please correct me if I mis-understood.

-- 
]               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    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email