IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Last Call on MOP for AODV-RPL

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 19 October 2021 22:08 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 04F333A089B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:08:31 -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, 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 TIncrIQz7-2T for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 749583A0899 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC70518043; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:09:01 -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 gsA4BUwUxdTv; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5085218041; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EF0F0; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:08:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
cc: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88bgDUuitoVhtbk8qTdMJcYVzocWybRcAZsGhKEsd9uLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxLxfNdPE+s11DqiwDuXg7auwVc953kgC_EZ28bugEWrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+sJUc=iDZAsMUw0L+H-orAKUWxxmm9hyerMS71Tjje0Smi+g@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ88bgDUuitoVhtbk8qTdMJcYVzocWybRcAZsGhKEsd9uLg@mail.gmail.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: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:08:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4422.1634681303@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yQp6fm9sQm6yf7XJR3KKJHwX4fk>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Last Call on MOP for AODV-RPL
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: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:08:31 -0000

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I think it is better to assign AODV_RPL using 5. Not sure why just
    > because not much used P2P_RPL we change to another protocol, is this
    > option taken often in IETF WGs.

Until we do RPL v2 with MOPEX, we'll have only 1 MOP value left (6).
AODV_RPL replaces/upgrades P2P_RPL.
We think that P2P_RPL isn't widely deployed.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status