Personally, I am OK changing the scope to a RPL routing domain rather than a RPL Instance. If one really wants to limit to a RPL Instance, then they can also include a RPL Option. This is what we originally had in rpl-routing-header-05. This change was made late during the IESG review process.
Jari, would you support reverting the scope of the RPL SRH to a RPL routing domain rather than a RPL Instance? Thanks. -- Jonathan Hui On Dec 21, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote: > Jonathan > > I described the problem in the message I sent just now. I think RPL Instance > is not the correct scope for SRH. It has to be a RPL domain to be defined as > we discussed some time back on the ROLL list. > > Thanks > Mukul > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Hui" <jon...@cisco.com> > To: "Mukul Goyal" <mu...@uwm.edu> > Cc: "roll" <r...@ietf.org> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:27:29 AM > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-07 > > > Mukul, > > As defined in the draft today, you cannot use a RPL routing header to cross > RPL Instances. My understanding is that roll-p2p-rpl makes use of local RPL > instances. Can you describe the issue you are concerned about? > > -- > Jonathan Hui > > On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote: > >> Jonathan >> >> The IESG-approved draft refers to the RPL instance as the scope where the >> routing header can be used. How would this routing header be used for >> general source routing (across RPL instances) in an LLN? How would a node >> use this routing header if it wants to travel along a source route >> discovered using P2P-RPL? >> >> Thanks >> Mukul >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
