[Roll] DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node

Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com> Wed, 08 May 2019 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>
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 5992112013B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 oOAMfYoqmBnD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B40120134 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3A9E638DD40518D45533 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:07:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:07:26 +0100
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.86]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 8 May 2019 10:37:14 +0530
From: Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node
Thread-Index: AdUFW++4O9eJo3SBSoOtuTjMRFa1bA==
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 05:07:13 +0000
Message-ID: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DE89061@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-IN, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.157.44]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DE89061BLREML503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/x52AvY8pPo1gx-BFQP8fGOaVgqU>
Subject: [Roll] DCO Invalidation triggered from ancestor node
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, 08 May 2019 05:07:31 -0000

Hello ROLL,

During the review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10, there was a point raised by Alvaro which we would like to bring to the WG.

The draft adds DCO msg which allows route invalidation by the common ancestor node. The DCO message is generated by the ancestor node in response to DAO with I-flag (invalidate previous route flag) set in context to the corresponding target. The I-flag is used as a mechanism so that the target is in-charge of its own invalidation. Having said that, the ancestor node has all the state information needed to generate the DCO __unilaterally__.

We would like to understand WG thoughts on "whether this unilateral invalidation from ancestor can be allowed or we should strictly let the ancestor node generate DCO in response to DAO with I-flag set."

Am not quoting pros/cons of the approaches, because this might bias the thinking and it would be nice to have different perspectives.

A diagram to aid understanding: https://github.com/roll-wg/efficient-route-invalidation/blob/master/unilateral-dco.md

Any feedback will be very useful and appreciated.

Thanks,
Rahul