Hendrik Mahrt <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not quite sure how the type of media or its capability to broadcast > interacts with RPL parent selection. The way I understand ACP, IPsec > tunnels are established with all link neighbors of the same ACP domain.
Yes. In a busy L2 broadcast domain, establishing an IPsec tunnel with every
neighbour is probably excessive. A device should accept many incoming
connections, as there might not be any other device willing to talk to it,
but I think initiating more than about three on a single L2 domain is
probably too much. There is some work to be done here!
> This is done prior to RPL coming into action. It is also necessary to
> exchange RPL ranks with all neighbors. How else would a node determine
> its parent(s)? I guess afterwards tunnels to neighbors that are neither
> parent nor child of a node could be closed again, yes.
Yes, bring up the tunnel, send DIOs, listen for DIOs.
I wouldn't close the tunnel afterwards until there was a resource
constraint, but perhaps one might wind up marking the tunnel as "do not
rekey". The other end may feel different though.
>> It's a good question, and I assumed that global route repair would
>> occur periodically, and whenever the NOC found that it couldn't reach
>> some nodes. There is probably a gap in knowledge/experience here.
> The wording in ACP Section 6.12.1.7 is "The DODAG version is only
> incremented under catastrophic events", therefore I was under the
> impression global repair would only be done in extreme circumstances,
> and not periodically.
A link going down in an ISP is probably a catastrophic event.
Maybe the text needs adjustment.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
