Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.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 5C66012D8E1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYnLOeu83gBG for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6942A12DCD3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r140so15942532vkf.0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=xKINg5b2UxEGx14pVs4uAPiAJN20IDw+HpjpiMntfDg=; b=Z2adDuC9vFfQ7ayKcR3b8JLQFilsn2/5TEeJpFDSMraQuG43MO2yhrud2hUv4JRoBQ DBYMuci0uiCgkuiGHs+rSkcaJxfnP0cwZERWK0zy3U932LYCAFb/Sj54kPWR4rGkfX0/ Kgx4qN0gORFUaMvnlmlqog6B3sDmCB8fkqaSXCQuUFQPy2hHyd3AjDxVeUwogyTXuqQ5 pLqWln1CaTWsLNUjGqt9I1T1akHsyp9SE900iiPZoX/0K5i/0cJwupL9VNDzUd+J857g 7yKXGZpdgyRqoXo8JssyjGNqLw1BaRJItFU4kt7jcjRRMmrky74+a9ajQiAaGcCqu1AB iUMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=xKINg5b2UxEGx14pVs4uAPiAJN20IDw+HpjpiMntfDg=; b=FxieO3CBNLTrhfGQjyDOLDGexUMEu14YVP6G2s47Ih0zpTRv3Nwk+NFC7zZSqJP2xd GxFvqmMk37TD/dQzzfUMGgUcWSC9HPLukNc5rTBSqLifWhMsgCPmj4CUdF337hLHULua LjlHotCHwk0PzDwf5ndcOPHpTzaUs+uNYr9c4RIqUuWfvBh4C49W9udNLFUw727JHH76 N+Q7CO2uRB2B97H0V3mtyT5sOv0LNF3dVXv0m/RNgCW/DgfrL1GAiA0PqEwsCBV258iq WCKJ2mo8Q8IAP0EmhaUd38opJywUhq5k1+uYDV+a5Pn3fmWr/PnKKGpjNZwqKobzKz51 ufjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIbgfsOPQnY/Mv6Tm9ro41Nphh4SznMgV7xbhzm18v0NK16QzXD7CiM7v95aAy+zml5oh2KdyltBYF5kw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.40.225 with SMTP id d88mr2099082uad.73.1464086577536; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.159.37.98 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2016 03:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUep6u43OtAtwSw8stPVCT-r2Mfssp2=Va8sXvtL7f8vQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09c3e3fc17b5de9b7366d226c034da28@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUePiV+_Nd+f-H-x_zNoTgkS0Cqe1rq7qD7ie_H3MyOorw@mail.gmail.com> <bc96b8913fff031fc1f41eedfdb6bee3@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUe=t7MwkVAUd33+tz_M7J6sqmHKahCQsiBm_e86eHb6cA@mail.gmail.com> <1747ba1478659868c3b715ff8b807c6c@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUep6u43OtAtwSw8stPVCT-r2Mfssp2=Va8sXvtL7f8vQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:42:57 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcnxBbpNFpRxLWfp=WDmL2S=MeS1bF0jvgqTjPtwYgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: "consultancy@vanderstok.org" <consultancy@vanderstok.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c122be85fe8a50533943860
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/0Tw6G7o1_OrlKXWfzQUsae6bOUg>
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:43:01 -0000

btw, I just found a proposed approach for interaction between RPL Instances

Barcelo, Marc, Alejandro Correa, Jose Lopez Vicario, and Antoni Morell.
"Cooperative interaction among multiple RPL instances in wireless sensor
networks." *Computer Communications* (2015).

Cheers,

Ines.

2016-05-24 13:26 GMT+03:00 Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>;:

> Ah, got it, thank you very much.
>
> Ines
>
> 2016-05-24 13:22 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> that means writing "one RPL instance" in figure 3 in stead of "RPL
>> instance" to remove that ambiguity.
>> Writing in the use case section a phrase as the one below will be more
>> than sufficient for me.
>>
>> peter
>>
>> Ines  Robles schreef op 2016-05-24 12:16:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> We are just considering here one RPLInstance.
>>>
>>> Working with different RPLInstances, involves deeply analysis, which
>>> we could do in the future. But, actually I dont know if it is
>>> possible/useful to send a message from one RPL Instance to another one
>>> , since for example a RPL node may belong to multiple RPL Instances,
>>> and it may act as a router in some and as a leaf in others[1], for
>>> this reason it does not make sense to me sending packet from one
>>> RPLInstance to other RPLInstance. Besides the control messages has one
>>> field for RPLInstanceID, it does not have RPLInstanceID origen or
>>> RPLInstanceID dst.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Ines
>>>
>>> [1] RFC6550. Section 5. RFC 6550 describes only how a single instance
>>> behaves
>>>
>>> 2016-05-24 12:17 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:
>>>
>>> I also did not see a mapping of flow from one RPL instance to
>>>> another instance.
>>>>
>>>> I do not understand this. Could you please clarify?
>>>>
>>>
>>>  A node belonging to one RPL instance sends a message to a node
>>> belonging to another RPL instance.
>>> This seems possible in Figure 3, with 3 RPL instances?
>>>
>>> If possible, it means an additional use case.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>