Re: [Roll] naming and other goals for RPL Unaware Leaves

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 11 October 2019 20:17 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 9EBA51200A3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 0d5Ztrjo1l5f for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C91120106 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (214-137-20-31.ftth.glasoperator.nl [31.20.137.214]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96E521F456 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:17:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AE1BA3500; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 22:18:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <MN2PR11MB3565E2AD54ED07A5AB138E3FD8970@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <11891.1570805812@dooku.sandelman.ca> <MN2PR11MB3565E2AD54ED07A5AB138E3FD8970@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:03 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 22:18:22 +0200
Message-ID: <22777.1570825102@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xD0dm9a0JuVaSVquyFi4RRK0Pno>
Subject: Re: [Roll] naming and other goals for RPL Unaware Leaves
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, 11 Oct 2019 20:17:43 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > The art of RFC 6550: 1) a leaf is a node that connects to the RPL
    > network as a host and obtained reachability from the RPL domain 2) all
    > leaves need to be RPL aware. This involves sending DAOs thus speaking
    > RFC 6550.

Agreed, but can you relate it to the categories I wrote about?

    > I wrote the first rounds of the RUL draft with the expectation that: -
    > we define a new type of leaf that does 1) but not 2) .

So, this is my category:

    mcr> 3) RPL host.  Pascal and I disagree whether to call this an RPL *AWARE*
    mcr> host (because it speaks RPL data plane), or an RPL *UNAWARE* host
    mcr> (because it does not speak 6550).  It being a host, it is by definition
    mcr> a leaf.

Do others agree?
I don't care what we call it.

But, useofrplinfo used the term RUL to refer to category (2), not (3).
If all leaves are (3) then from an RPL point of view, they require no special care.

If useofrplinfo can assume (3), which is a new thing, then can useofrplinfo define (2),
explain that are difficult to deal with, and remove support for them?
If we go this way, then useofrplinfo winds up with a reference to
unaware-leaves and has to wait for it to progress.

Maybe we could change the word unaware to non-participating.
Or maybe anti-social.   

    > In contrast I called a leaf-that-is-not-a-RUL a RAL. => A leaf is
    > either a RUL or a RAL nut not both. IOW {RUL} v {RAL} = {leaves} and
    > {RUL} ^ {RAL} = 0. So the term leaf was extended and the leaves that
    > RFC 6550 presented can still be named as RAL. Combining with a RPL
    > router we obtain the RAN, RPL aware node.

A RAL speaks RPL, but is just at the edge.  Is it my category (4), or is
it 

    >    {It is distinguished from a 6LR which just happens to be leaf,
    > because there are no children that have picked it as a parent.  Such a
    > 6LR sends out peridic DIOs according trickle}

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