Hi again

A proposed text would be like:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  |     Type      |     Length    |    Status     |    Opaque     |
  |  Rsvd | I |R|T|     TID       |     Registration Lifetime     |
  |                                                               |
....             Registration Ownership Verifier                 ...
  |                                                               |


       One-byte Opaque field; this is an octet that ND does not need to process
       but that the 6LN wishes the 6LR to pass transparently to another process.
       Two-bit Integer: A value of zero indicates that the Opaque field carries
       an abstract index that is used to decide in which routing topology the
       address is expected to be injected. In that case, the Opaque field is
       passed to a routing process with the indication that this is a topology
       information and the value of 0 indicates default. All other values are

Does that work?


From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: jeudi 12 avril 2018 15:40
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Cc: Yan Filyurin <yanf...@gmail.com>; Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com>; 
Subject: instance ID in rfc6775 update

Dear all :

During a conversation on the RIFT protocol it appeared that there are use cases 
in RIFT to support host mobility with rfc6775-update.
There is a caveat, though, which is in fact common with RPL. Both cases need a 
concept of multi topology routing.
In the case of RPL, the topology is indexed by an instance ID. In the case of 
RIFT, there is a need for an index to a RIB, so one octet is probably enough.
A suggestion is thus to use the reserved octet in the ARO to carry an instance 
ID, and use a bit to signal that this is what that field does, in case there is 
a need later to overload it with something else.

I understand this is coming late in the process; but then there is no logic 
associated to the change, this is just passing on an additional information 
that is useful for more than one candidate protocol.

Please let me know if there is an issue pursuing this. If there is no 
opposition, my plan it currently to add this in rev-19.

All the best,

6lo mailing list

Reply via email to