Re: [6lo] Comments of draft-jadhav-lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy-00

Hi Zhen and Rahul:

Thanks for looping 6lo in the lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy draft discussions.

6lo WG, please review draft-jadhav-lwig-nbr-mgmt-policy  document for any
impact in 6lowpan-nd. Also it is a good place to discuss if anyone else is
aware of any alternative neighbor management methods.
Also please provide feedback for improving neighbor management from 6lo
perspective.

-Samita

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Rahul and co-authors,
>
> Many thanks for the hard work in contributing this draft to the lwig
> wg. (I am copying roll and 6lo since some discussion will be quite
> relevant)
>
> As I go through the document, I found essentially there are three
> types of different policies discussed:
> a. Trivial neighbor management (FCFS/LRU)
> b. advanced neighbor management (proactive and reactive)
> c. proposed ‘reservation based’ approach
>
> Logically I understand the shortcomings of the trivial approach,
> however in practice, how much this many impact the network stability
> is not convincing enough yet. (what’s the possible size of node
> density/mobility may be impacted? ).
>
> The discussion of reactive and proactive ways of managing the neighbor
> cache entries is helpful. The discussion about the proactive approach
> in Sec.2.5.2 quoted below has some pending relationship with RPL (if
> this is an acknowledged problem by ROLL WG).  Anyway this is something
> we need to discuss with the ROLL wg to see if this a need feature.
>
>     Currently there is no standard way of signaling such neighbor cache
>    space availability information.  RPL's DIO messages carry metric
>    information and can be augmented with neighbor cache space as an
>    additional metric.
>
> For the proposed reservation based approach,  I think this is quite a
> practical recommendation (if my concern about a. will be relaxed).
>
> I also found the Contiki RPL implementation has recently used a
> similar way in its rpl-nbr-policy. Shall we link the draft to the open
> source community to see if the document has provided additional help
> to the implementation? (or that’s already done given coauthors Simon
> and Joakim are both active contributors of Contiki)?
>
> Many thanks for discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Zhen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>