Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 18 July 2016 15:02 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 CF08412B046 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, 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 nsndLUnOEkc1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66F8A12D8AD for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFBE200A7; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910CB638D1; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:34:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUdq=sTA5XW4wX5NAoNor+sBv0HMjV1dXG63ffh=1EOCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b9e569f12a008245ef824e340f510dff@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUdq=sTA5XW4wX5NAoNor+sBv0HMjV1dXG63ffh=1EOCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:34:49 -0400
Message-ID: <30186.1468852489@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/zwaj8Eg9jJa35dwFiR6GWPeGoyY>
Cc: Kovatsch Matthias <kovatsch@inf.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: [Roll] useofrplinfo version 5
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:02:25 -0000

Ines  Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>; wrote:
    > P: Section 5.3 and section 5.2: If the 6LBR does not know whether
    > destination is Raf or not_Raf in section 5.3, then this is also the
    > case in section 5.2. Question why is the IPv6-in-IPv6 header not also
    > used in section 5.2. The problem for the 6LBR is the same.

Because the root doesn't know (unless we mandate that the E flag is
propogated all the way upwards), then the root has to always use hop-by-hop
IPIP for both 5.2 and 5.3, because the root can't tell which situation is in
play.  We (as omniscient god looking down) can distinguish the cases, but the
root can not.

Michael and Ines.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-