Hemant,
Being able to change the option data hop-by-hop is fundamental to
RPL's ability to verify routing information consistency. That is why
Section 2 of the rpl-option draft states that "the RPL option is
expected to change en-route."
The Router Alert Option as specified today does not satisfy this
fundamental requirement. Section 2.1 of RFC 2711 states that "the
option must not change en route."
--
Jonathan Hui
On May 30, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
If RFC 2711 already defines a Router Alert Option to use, why do we
need
a new option in the Hop by Hop option for roll as specified by this
document? I suggest we just use a new code value for roll with RFC
2711
and be done with it. See section 2.1 of RFC 2711. Here is a list of
what IPv6 protocols already use the Router Alert Option.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values/ipv6-routeralert
-values.xhtml
RFC 2711 also already lists the security concerns with use of the
Router
Alert Option. This document is repeating the same security concern.
Further one should look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rahman-rtg-router-alert-considerations-
03
Hemant
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Philip Levis
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 1:08 PM
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-00.txt
On May 17, 2010, at 6:18 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:
Dear all,
This is to re-activate our discussion during the last IETF
meetings. Feed-back are very welcome since we would like to move
forward as soon as possible, this proposed extension is indeed
critical for RPL to move forward.
Many Thanks.
JP and Jonathan.
I strongly support this draft; it is a make-or-break extension,
without which RPL will not be an effective protocol. There is
extensive experimental evidence from many LLN deployments and
testbeds that the mechanisms it enables (datapath validation) are
critical.
I think Jonathan has done an excellent job of narrowly defining what
the option can do: containing it within a RPL domain addresses most
of the major concerns with hop-by-hop options.
Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
