Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01.txt

JeongGil Ko <jeonggil.ko@etri.re.kr> Sat, 20 October 2012 10:09 UTC

Return-Path: <jeonggil.ko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F8521F8640 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o65Km0HeP-Ay for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0954121F8422 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so941419pad.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Qba2clcmUvDrhXDtTuJKfwCknBqsFIbcC778aNAuAtA=; b=hsFrp8j4lVTLioIMt/dWoUZ7al8N7MLaI76iU7+MWHKcgyMoh3vgMHBhu/Q2c3K5ol kIB1vgdwZs9+5GkIr3HjFkhJAsY0iWZ2zTDqQFbcmJ23uBH6urpS5y8SOV2oo6gLQazC f5gbWuXrrC0eNsAYTDgoew/zpjRWY/lZZ1Ce9CAvSkmrBHnX2JZg62yURB3wdeG45nfV i5/GOkZL1RmpZ7p4WHqeDowChe2SGrumPA/pdhiWBdly5xyiuhLo+VLKB0V1JfQvfKnn aRcf9Gi6+OzZxYgxhKHnLCKxCdgrNy3ORz1A0VZs8yIMU6Hw7QdPAN5OYJenbrPJ6Leg rgqw==
Received: by 10.68.241.170 with SMTP id wj10mr10142545pbc.56.1350727772455; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.211.10.10] ([129.254.38.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oj1sm2647198pbb.19.2012.10.20.03.09.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: "JeongGil (John) Ko" <jeonggil.ko@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: JeongGil Ko <jeonggil.ko@etri.re.kr>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ88JAxHJa3TJ+VeD1Ams30xp4yk2nGetLRjofsf_PvtFRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:09:26 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <112E19DC-138E-4D21-ABA1-592B5A09CC48@etri.re.kr>
References: <20121020080910.1372.90616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EC677191-74E4-4AEC-976A-B2C1450120EE@etri.re.kr> <CADnDZ88JAxHJa3TJ+VeD1Ams30xp4yk2nGetLRjofsf_PvtFRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: 박종준 Park <juny@etri.re.kr>, roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:09:34 -0000

Abdussalam,

I am also hoping to present this draft at the meeting :)

Thank you for the comments on -00, your points have beed addressed in -01. 

Thanks!

-John

------
JeongGil Ko, Ph.D.
Researcher
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
http://sites.google.com/site/jeonggilko/

On Oct 20, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> 
> Hi John,
> I interested in your proposal, and like to see the draft team present
> it to ROLL 85 meeting if available, I have commented before draft-00,
> and my full comments will come when completed.
> 
> AB
> 
> On 10/20/12, JeongGil Ko <jeonggil.ko@etri.re.kr> wrote:
>> Dear RoLL WG,
>> 
>> Please review this updated version of draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology.
>> 
>> This draft discusses about the routing pathologies that occur when storing
>> and non-storing mode nodes are mixed together in a single network. Compared
>> to the previous version of the draft, we have addressed some of the comments
>> from the mailing list and added in an additional case where the mixture of
>> storing and non-storing mode nodes can affect the performance of the RPL
>> network for *collection traffic* as well as downwards connectivity. As the
>> draft indicates, due to RPL restricting different MOPs from fully
>> functioning in the same network (e.g., one MOP is forced to be a leaf),
>> differences in downwards routing schemes affects the route quality for
>> collection traffic as well. Specifically, due to different MOPs despite
>> having physical connectivity to the root, a node may not be able to find a
>> routing connection to the root. Given that collection is the main focus in
>> many applications, this is something that needs to be addressed.
>> 
>> As a side comment, this draft addresses some of the issues that came up in
>> our large scale HVAC supporting WSN system deployment in a 15 story
>> building. We plan to install ~2000 sensors and actuators in this building
>> for HVAC related applications (e.g., CO, Temp, Hum, PIR sensors and Air
>> Conditioning, light, ventilation, heating controlling actuators).
>> 
>> Cost reasons restrict us to have resource rich devices on the sensor devices
>> but actuation units (which are pretty expensive already) can be resource
>> rich (i.e., sensing devices will have similar capabilities to an MSP430
>> while the actuators are more Cortex M3-like MCUs). Since these sensor
>> devices cannot support storing mode routing, and RPL restricts us from
>> having a mixture of storing and non-storing mode nodes, all nodes will have
>> to be non-storing mode nodes for the network to be RPL compliant.
>> 
>> While sensor nodes typically generate collection-direction traffic, to make
>> the actuators take action, downwards packets would need to be generated;
>> thus, this would increase the number of downwards packets and make the
>> network/transmission quality/efficiency for the downwards routes an
>> important factor to consider. By adding in features such as application
>> layer acknowledgements, the quantity of downwards traffic will increase even
>> more.
>> 
>> Nevertheless a few inefficiencies exist with downwards routes in our
>> application when using the non-storing mode ONLY. (1) First, due to the
>> increased number of nodes, the length of the source routing headers can
>> result to be long. (2) Second, the number of hops that “actuation” messages
>> travel increases, since most of these, essentially downwards, packets would
>> need to travel all the way to the root before being transmitted downwards.
>> (3) Third, the increased quantity in downwards traffic will give more load
>> on the one hop neighborhood of the DODAG root since the root would need to
>> deal with sensor reports in large quantities (e.g., collection) and also
>> actuation messages in increased quantities (e.g., downwards). (4) Fourth,
>> given that the locations of the sensor and actuator units are not adjustable
>> (e.g., the placement must be close to the actual sensing/actuation units) it
>> is difficult to overcome this inefficiency by simply improving the network
>> topology.
>> 
>> Given this, we can think of a case where more powerful nodes have storing
>> mode capabilities. This change can *ideally* resolve the issues that we
>> introduced above. Nevertheless, the DODAG root should be able to attach
>> source routing headers for its non-storing mode sensor nodes to forward
>> downwards packets; therefore, the root should implement non-storing mode. In
>> this case, even if the actuators are configured as storing mode nodes, given
>> RPL, they can only act as leaf nodes. By forcing storing mode nodes to be
>> leaf nodes brings back the issues introduced above. Furthermore, since we
>> cannot use these nodes for collection traffic forwarding, this will affect
>> the data collection performance as well. Therefore, we are in need of a
>> scheme that can mix storing and non-storing mode nodes in a single network
>> effectively.
>> 
>> By allowing both storing and non-storing modes to fully interoperate (as the
>> draft indicates), the number of downwards messages that the DODAG root MUST
>> take care of can decrease given that actuator nodes with storing
>> capabilities can add source routing headers within the network to cool down
>> the hot-spot near the DODAG root and also reduce the number of hops that
>> each packet travels to reach the final destination. Furthermore, since all
>> nodes will participate in the DODAG construction process as routing-capable
>> nodes, the quality of the selected links can potentially increase; thus,
>> improving the performance of collection routes as well.
>> 
>> Due to the aforementioned reasons, we are proposing the attached draft. Our
>> proposal in the draft introduces light-weight modifications to the current
>> RPL specs so that RPL can also support the cases mentioned above. With
>> minimal increase in complexity, RPL will be able to tolerate more types of
>> networks and you won't need to worry about which MOP your neighbors
>> installed on their RPL network! :) Your review and thoughts will be of great
>> help in improving the draft :)
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> -John
>> 
>> ------
>> JeongGil Ko, Ph.D.
>> Researcher
>> Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
>> http://sites.google.com/site/jeonggilko/
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>> draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01.txt
>>> Date: October 20, 2012 5:09:10 PM GMT+09:00
>>> To: <jeonggil.ko@etri.re.kr>
>>> Cc: <jsjeong@etri.re.kr>, <juny@etri.re.kr>, <nskim@etri.re.kr>,
>>> <jajun@etri.re.kr>, <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by JeongGil Ko and posted to the
>>> IETF repository.
>>> 
>>> Filename:	 draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology
>>> Revision:	 01
>>> Title:		 RPL Routing Pathology In a Network With a Mix of Nodes Operating
>>> in Storing and Non-Storing Modes
>>> Creation date:	 2012-10-20
>>> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>>> Number of pages: 9
>>> URL:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01.txt
>>> Status:
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology
>>> Htmlized:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01
>>> Diff:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-01
>>> 
>>> Abstract:
>>>  The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non-
>>>  storing modes to operate in the same network.  We describe how such a
>>>  mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of
>>>  physical links available in the network.  The partitioning affects
>>>  both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic.
>>>  This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL
>>>  specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join
>>>  the RPL network as leaf nodes only.  We propose a solution that
>>>  modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret
>>>  source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a
>>>  non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>