IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?

Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.kelsey@ember.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 F200B21F865A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uMkVBLw4P2AA for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p01c12o147.mxlogic.net (p01c12o147.mxlogic.net [208.65.145.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3055F21F8658 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 06:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO p01c12o147.mxlogic.net) by p01c12o147.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.13.0-3) with ESMTP id aae4c7f4.62347940.1755.00-579.4117.p01c12o147.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <richard.kelsey@ember.com>); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:37:46 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c4eaa0e6dca3e-17cf1cc9709c1fa8d8829c76f206216c9bb58a30
Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO usmail.ember.com) by p01c12o147.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.13.0-3) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 8ae4c7f4.0.1747.00-364.4098.p01c12o147.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <richard.kelsey@ember.com>); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:37:45 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c4ea904a570b9-213568f1780b2eed31dcd0a95f9aeeaec4fbc8e5
Received: from kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com (192.168.81.75) by usmail.ember.com (192.168.80.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:39:17 -0400
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:36:50 -0400
Message-ID: <87wr5v8vpp.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <055.a0f55ceefb3864b4fcd8d89b549d387c@trac.tools.ietf.org> (message from roll issue tracker on Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:08:50 +0000)
From: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
References: <055.a0f55ceefb3864b4fcd8d89b549d387c@trac.tools.ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.81.75]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [216.236.254.3]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=u0NvnAFnSA0A:10 a=u-k6GrH3DusA:10 a=saA6nF2ZJa]
X-AnalysisOut: [AA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=MYqPJgym4Kx47q1P90kooQ==:17 a=48]
X-AnalysisOut: [vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=CH87r3YBytmwzoa-9V8A:9]
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 04 Apr 2012 13:37:47 -0000

> From: roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:08:50 +0000
> 
> #86: G flag: do we need that text?
> 
>  Problem (resolition is proposed)
>  ------------------------------
>  Disagreement on the meaning of 'G' bit and imposed setting to 0;
> 
>  Proposed resolution
>  ---------------------------
>  The origin sets the G flag based on its perception of whether joining
>  how the flag's value would affect the rank calculation under the OF
>  being used. By default, the G flag is set to zero given the temporary
>  nature of the DAG being created.

I disagree with the proposed resolution.  It adds needless
confusion.  The G flag is 0 if and only if the DODAG is floating.
There is no point to allowing floating DODAGs with a P2P-RDO
option.  I suggest that the G bit be set to 1 and that routers be
explicitly prohibited from creating floating DODAGs with a
P2P-RDO option.
                                   -Richard Kelsey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email