Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages: DIS - Roll Digest Vol 103, Issue 2
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 13:31 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 E22E012D5CB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 06:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_MIME_MALF=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 3CtzMpBYZqpD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 06:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C65A12D0B2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 06:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=46677; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470749486; x=1471959086; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=30X0Dee5M/Ykf+kLSYz0GiJR0QAAUOa7FUKKEyRHgUU=; b=iIkBEdVrUqK5t1/nCDUJM0X0Zv07ALoAQ+kJ7B+YbOTyi/YxEc68hq10 bSoj9fubNeQgIXtWxdvhKINVg4rtkCDqJqpIKhTpSJjhAe5JBUZLO2BZh 6VqSizcPJjxO2qWBPjYaW8FYFJ/zrvOhTxcxHF41MmjDvL99XM8EqlLhL U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DSBAA72qlX/4MNJK1UCYJ3TlZ8B6d5kSSBfSaFLUoCgU44FAEBAQEBAQFdJ4ReAQEEAQEBKxwFIBAHBAIBCBEDAQEBDRQBBgcnCgEUCQgBAQQTCBUEhypMAw8IDr1WDYQuAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIYqgl6Bb4JDgU8HCQIBASEHEgwCCAKFIwWGDIIZDIYgfYQnhUQBhhyFb4J3gXKEW4h9jDSDdwEeNoFmLBwXgTVuAYZNfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,494,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="308752899"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Aug 2016 13:31:24 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u79DVO8G018079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:31:24 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 08:31:23 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 08:31:23 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages: DIS - Roll Digest Vol 103, Issue 2
Thread-Index: AdHyqmNEiBi4OvTbQkWdyWBHB1dveAAbL+Rg
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:31:17 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:30:18 +0000
Message-ID: <9a32eeaf0e2a40e990fdf991638afef2@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <000f01d1f2ac$1772ef00$4658cd00$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <000f01d1f2ac$1772ef00$4658cd00$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.245.202]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9a32eeaf0e2a40e990fdf991638afef2XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/z-uvvnGiHEFZggWW_pAn_djNrkA>
Subject: Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages: DIS - Roll Digest Vol 103, Issue 2
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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, 09 Aug 2016 13:31:30 -0000
I'm unsure of that, William.
All in all, I see this as an errata, and I'm not convinced that we need a new RFC.
Here is my understanding (draft authors, please correct me if I missed some of your points):
· When an old parent O loses a child, it can only send a no-path DAO with the same path sequence S0 as the last DAO it sent.
· A new parent N will propagate DAOs with a newer path sequence Sn > S0.
· When that newer information hits a common ancestor C of O and N, C cleans up its stale state towards O because of the stale sequence, and continues propagating the new state towards the root, which in effect enables reachability to the child from the root and most of the DODAG, but not where a stale state is still present, between C and O.
· The no-DAO is meant to clean up the state between O and C.
I think I heard at the WG meeting that the no-path DAO would be ignored because the sequence is not incremented. To which I'll point out the item 3 below from RFC 6550, which was intended to cover that case:
In Storing mode, a DAO message is "new" if
it satisfies any of these criteria for a contained Target:
1. it has a newer Path Sequence number,
2. it has additional Path Control bits, or
3. it is a No-Path DAO message that removes the last Downward route
to a prefix.
It was pointed that next the text says:
6. Nodes SHOULD ignore DAOs without newer sequence numbers and MUST
NOT process them further.
I agree this is wrong. The spirit was:
6. Nodes SHOULD ignore DAOs that are not "new" MUST NOT process them
further.
Note that the bug above also impacts the process of getting multiple routes down.
The whole design is to send multiple DAOs with a same sequence and NOT ignore them.
e.g.
If a DAO
message containing the same Target is issued to multiple
parents at a given point in time for the purpose of route
redundancy, then the Path Sequence is the same in all the DAO
messages for that same target
also
All DAOs generated at the same
time for the same Target MUST be sent with the same Path Sequence in
the Transit Information.
My suggestion to solve this problem is to post an errata along the spirit above and be done with it. This way we are sure that plain RFC 6550 implementation will look at it. A new RFC may be 1) overkill and 2) ignored.
Note that RPL also has a dataplane fix to clean reactively this stale state with the Forwarding-Error 'F' flag.
What do others think?
Pascal
From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of William
Sent: mercredi 10 août 2016 04:08
To: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages: DIS - Roll Digest Vol 103, Issue 2
In my opinion, the draft draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-ps-01 is quite relevant.
I am just not confident about the second draft draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-ps-01.
We have deployed a WSN for experiments, but have not paid attention to that no-path DAO problem, so I still confuse about the importance of the draft.
Jadhav and Cao, Have you implemented any testbeds for those cases written in the draft? Or do you have any paper analyzed those cases in more detail?
If yes, I would like to do some real experiments to evaluate the importance of the draft.
Kind regards,
William
PhD of Research
IoT based Smart Furniture for Smart Home<http://cuddlyhomeadvisors.com/> Research Group
-----Original Message-----
From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of roll-request@ietf.org<mailto:roll-request@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 12:00 PM
To: roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Roll Digest, Vol 103, Issue 2
Send Roll mailing list submissions to
roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
roll-request@ietf.org<mailto:roll-request@ietf.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at
roll-owner@ietf.org<mailto:roll-owner@ietf.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Roll digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages: DIS
Mod. - No-Path DAO" (Caozhen (zcao))
2. Roll ietf96 minutes (peter van der Stok)
3. Re: Roll ietf96 minutes (Ines Robles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:03:42 +0000
From: "Caozhen (zcao)" <zhen.cao@huawei.com<mailto:zhen.cao@huawei.com>>
To: "consultancy@vanderstok.org<mailto:consultancy@vanderstok.org>" <consultancy@vanderstok.org<mailto:consultancy@vanderstok.org>>,
"Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks" <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages:
DIS Mod. - No-Path DAO"
Message-ID:
<0ADB5996A09C254EB300AB612DA81508215887F1@SZXEMI506-MBX.china.huawei.com<mailto:0ADB5996A09C254EB300AB612DA81508215887F1@SZXEMI506-MBX.china.huawei.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I would like to support both drafts (I am co-author of the second draft), they are certainly relevant to the wg.
I can contribute the review of the draft-gundogan-roll-dis-modifications.
-Zhen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of peter van der
> Stok
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 7:44 PM
> To: Roll <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL control messages: DIS
> Mod. - No-Path DAO"
>
> Dear all,
>
> Following the ROLL Meeting at IETF 96, we would like to know your
> opinion about the drafts, presented during IETF95 and IETF96. This is
> the first set of three emails. The adoption of drafts as WG drafts
> will be asked independently dependent on the status of the draft.
>
> A: draft-gundogan-roll-dis-modifications-00
> DIS Modifications
>
> ? Is the draft relevant to the working group.?
> ? Do you foresee to contribute to the work described in the draft ?
> ? Are you willing to review the draft ?
> ? Should the draft be rejected by the WG ?
>
> B: draft-jadhav-roll-no-path-dao-ps-01
> No-Path DAO Problem Statement
>
> ? Is the draft relevant to the working group.?
> ? Do you foresee to contribute to the work described in the draft ?
> ? Are you willing to review the draft ?
> ? Should the draft be rejected by the WG ?
>
>
> It would be nice to know the reasons why you agree or disagree with
> the drafts
>
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Peter and Ines
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:56:15 +0200
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl<mailto:stokcons@xs4all.nl>>
To: Roll <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Roll] Roll ietf96 minutes
Message-ID: <e73b847138c32a0e5e9c6a59cc3774e5@xs4all.nl<mailto:e73b847138c32a0e5e9c6a59cc3774e5@xs4all.nl>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Dear all,
Many thanks to Dominique for the minutes.
They have been uploaded.
There are a few speakers denoted with xxx, whose identity could not be determined.
Also there is some text by Don and Pascal that has got lost.
Could these persons complement the information?
many thanks,
Peter, Ines.
--
Peter van der Stok
vanderstok consultancy
mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org<mailto:consultancy@vanderstok.org>
www: www.vanderstok.org<http://www.vanderstok.org>
tel NL: +31(0)492474673 F: +33(0)966015248
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:22:23 +0300
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>>
To: "consultancy@vanderstok.org<mailto:consultancy@vanderstok.org>" <consultancy@vanderstok.org<mailto:consultancy@vanderstok.org>>,
Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Roll ietf96 minutes
Message-ID:
<CAP+sJUd7ntWSjr4mTntAW=bX5XyqCfmjdPX=ScSD0PHozyX5jw@mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAP+sJUd7ntWSjr4mTntAW=bX5XyqCfmjdPX=ScSD0PHozyX5jw@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The minute can be found here
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-roll
Many thanks to Dominique again :-)
Peter, Ines.
2016-08-04 14:56 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl<mailto:stokcons@xs4all.nl>>:
> Dear all,
>
> Many thanks to Dominique for the minutes.
> They have been uploaded.
>
> There are a few speakers denoted with xxx, whose identity could not be
> determined.
> Also there is some text by Don and Pascal that has got lost.
>
> Could these persons complement the information?
>
> many thanks,
>
> Peter, Ines.
>
> --
> Peter van der Stok
> vanderstok consultancy
> mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org<mailto:consultancy@vanderstok.org>
> www: www.vanderstok.org<http://www.vanderstok.org>
> tel NL: +31(0)492474673 F: +33(0)966015248
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/attachments/20160804/a0898b03/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
------------------------------
End of Roll Digest, Vol 103, Issue 2
************************************
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… Zhen Cao
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… William
- Re: [Roll] "Charter inclusion: Work in RPL contro… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)