IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 14 October 2022 12:33 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 A46DDC1524AB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYet3BGIJpHp for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 05:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A823EC1524A9 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 05:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3408F1800D; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:56:36 -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 9jTMT0PSEIPD; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722C21800C; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1665752193; bh=9HcOsEPXQuDisuqD+Eg6Uje8FLxVMq42NyvNlK4QBG0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ZfAKq35MX8BjpU1dOZzTru+BPAUA8QFKRJZLTs45NKw8IUe1CUhNz7hCYGNwu1mhW a+oYJ6UyHTfXMDmjo5DbS3lUUU7r0hINngTHudA/GngAEvpU+XzNxJfaKuFJnCVhfB yEWmp/O1xIPl4SKvy7qcBXDICJE8Ce0NmpxxKzPpn7HOAEruyS6amUOCeTIlvm+e22 nBfIvYf4uJjf8TQzMJgY2w0Et6bgYX+/jmkYiCuzE8uwGkIoMWoZjwhwzMZ+ecpQ2N 31wXFa0XWzsfQqvu44BQ7APh7jYWUb4UW/2VewADogRng63mBmJz27OZY8PK9XRhUQ JD8LVHdRo2ctw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0064961; Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <39e6a070-c4f9-7fd1-8fad-310cf8726539@mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <CAP+sJUfcEY2DNEQV=duJdN6P8zZn0ccuei+4ra-B6TcLb5z8Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO0Djp3w4vWCOawQ+eegNTRzb_HRGYH6n=bdEH6iVf5ZO0AGFQ@mail.gmail.com> <f71fe153-c0d1-097e-a72e-49ece97cbd48@mimuw.edu.pl> <10272666-28c7-ab3e-9ceb-1b8f2bb6e5e5@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881A5AA0E5C5010FD2BE39ED8749@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <bc174171-4b68-40b2-d532-463709e5bea8@mimuw.edu.pl> <CO1PR11MB4881D0C985582B28AE2DE8BED84E9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <ab695952-3b11-46ad-f638-622ca770f8e1@mimuw.edu.pl> <02c7a894-b7a8-8fcb-9119-172a91a3871b@mimuw.edu.pl> <8421.1620834368@localhost> <d0f9bd53-ed96-1512-5bc2-59063ba2d5dc@mimuw.edu.pl> <b556ca50-b2db-798f-1cf2-8d7a77d5ad63@mimuw.edu.pl> <21a67951-92c7-5cfa-7bda-a11ac004492c@mimuw.edu.pl> <260038.1647531160@dooku> <5fad2f45-02a5-7241-f797-43165b0fc9a2@mimuw.edu.pl> <386984.1649868259@dooku> <eed72f83-127a-8705-f956-d4765b967027@mimuw.edu.pl> <ca6c aa5f-a185-522d-6751-e3b5218acd43@mimuw.edu.pl> <26461.1665677140@localhost> <39e 6a070-c4f9-7fd1-8fad-310cf8726539@mimuw.edu.pl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
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: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 08:33:22 -0400
Message-ID: <22337.1665750802@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/zabIQsxumcd7dcV5Z4biqAp2eYA>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 14 Oct 2022 12:33:33 -0000

Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
    > On 13/10/2022 18:05, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
    >> > 3. Is rebuilding the DODAG in such a case desirable?
    >> > If the majority of links to the root that have once formed a DODAG
    >> are
    >> > currently down, then the DODAG should probably look different than for
    >> > the network with those links up. Rebuilding the DODAG, at least in my
    >> > opinion, makes a lot of sense in such a case. Furthermore, the threshold
    >> > describing how large the majority is is configurable. Depending on whether
    >> > one wants to prioritize speeding up root failure detection or slowing down
    >> > DODAG rebuilding, different values can be chosen.
    >> Do the sentinels need to agree on this threshold?

    > Yes, they should. This is a configuration parameter of the protocol.

I don't remember if this goes into the DIO or not.
Should it?
what is the effect of the parameter being different on different sentinels?
(It's a pathological case, but worth thinking about for 30s)

For me, I clearly should read the document again top to bottom, since it's
been many months.  I guess I could volunteer to document shepherd.
I think we should WGLC the document already.
Perhaps in mid-November, I'll have time to finish debugging my RFC8994
implementation.  I think that this protocol would be useful in the ACP case,
but I'd be many months away from implementing.

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

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status