Hi Pascal,
> Would ANIMA wish that ROLL publishes that doc?
I certainly can't speak for the WG, but to me it seems like an issue that
might arise for other use cases, so an answer from ROLL for the general
case seems to make sense.
Brian
On 14/04/2017 19:28, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
Hello Brian
This is unspecified since prior to ACP there is always an RPI, thus the need to
express it somewhere, which we did in the ANIMA spec; and the problem you
raised has 2 sides.
Could be that nodes always expect an RPI and could be that they never do.
Either way nodes may drop the pack
On 14/04/2017 04:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
...
> I also think we could in light of rfc2460bis renegotiation, argue for
> insertion of RPI header by the ACP without IPIP encapsulation :-)
I wouldn't bet on that for a few more weeks yet. We do have a couple of
mitigations however:
1) Since the
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Benjamin:
...
> The control plane can be adapted, certainly quite easily. But a key
> question is whether or not the data plane can be adapted to use RPL's
> RPI or not.
> The RPI is how RPL signals its instances and manages routing
