From: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "Mathis Marion" <mathis.marion@silabs.com>,
linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org,
"Jérôme Pouiller" <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
Subject: Re: RPL lwtunnel encapsulation
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:44:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK-6q+hbr5r9GOAOJ=L9Sj68u8xh356iVtBOgsjMzFBZ7_mM0w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3098774.1698328568@dyas>
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:56 AM Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Mathis Marion <mathis.marion@silabs.com> wrote: > However, my
> >> observations suggest that it is actually not the case when >
> >> forwarding packets. Instead, the IPv6 header of the packet is modified
> >> > in a way which violates the IPv6 specification (RFC 8200 section 4):
> >>
> >> I have not sat down to read the code to understand what it actually
> >> does, so I can't really comment at this point. I salute you for
> >> having gotten into whether the code is compliant.
> >>
> >> But, I did write spend way too much of my life writing
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9008/ to deal with the perception
> >> that RPL networks had to violate 8200.
> >>
> >> I know that Linux does not (yet) deal with all the minutia in 9008. I
> >> wish that I had time to fix that.
>
> > To put everything into IPIP and back is not a question of doing a
> > iptunnel ip6tnl [0] and doing the right configuration... just do get
> > everything over "the internet" which I think is the whole reason why
> > putting everything into IPIP?
>
> I agree that modelling it an infinite series of iptunnel/ip6tnl is the wrong approach.
> I would model it akin to how ND and ARP work: something that happens which
> then resolves into some bytes that get prefixed and/or removed.
then it is currently possible, but not in a nice way (you will
configure yourself to death)... there might be new config options of
iptunnel/ip6tnl to do your ND approach (maybe with accessing ND
cache?).
It is not that the rpl tunnel for source routing header needs to deal
with IP6IP6, it already exists in the kernel with ip6tnl
implementation... it's just terrible to configure it.
- Alex
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-26 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-24 18:35 RPL lwtunnel encapsulation Mathis Marion
2023-10-25 15:35 ` Michael Richardson
2023-10-26 1:03 ` Alexander Aring
2023-10-26 12:39 ` Alexander Aring
2023-10-26 13:56 ` Michael Richardson
2023-10-26 16:44 ` Alexander Aring [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAK-6q+hbr5r9GOAOJ=L9Sj68u8xh356iVtBOgsjMzFBZ7_mM0w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=aahringo@redhat.com \
--cc=jerome.pouiller@silabs.com \
--cc=linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathis.marion@silabs.com \
--cc=mcr@sandelman.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).