Re: [Roll] Loop free local DODAG repair solution

Jianlin Guo <guo@merl.com> Thu, 25 October 2012 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <guo@merl.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 6996321F89B9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 4qK1TZ-1CvL3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.merl.com (ns1.merl.com [137.203.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFC121F896B for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tsumi.merl.com (tsumi.merl.com [137.203.134.9]) by ns1.merl.com (8.13.8/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q9PE1jdc015067; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:01:45 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dulcian.merl.com [137.203.143.95]) by tsumi.merl.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q9PE1arV030070; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:01:41 -0400
Message-ID: <50894640.1080804@merl.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:01:36 -0400
From: Jianlin Guo <guo@merl.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <50194329.3040003@merl.com> <501945CC.5040801@merl.com> <5086A598.7030508@merl.com> <23378.1351166893@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <23378.1351166893@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070108020005070302010308"
Cc: roll@ietf.org, Philip Orlik <porlik@merl.com>, Kieran Parsons <parsons@merl.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Loop free local DODAG repair solution
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:01:47 -0000

Hi Michael,

For your first question, draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-04 pointed 
out that "it can be observed that with current implementations of RPL, 
such as the ContikiRPL implementation, loops do occur - and, frequently. 
During the same experiments described in Section 13, a snapshot of the 
DODAG was made every ten seconds. In 74.14% of the 4114 snapshots, at 
least one loop was observed".

For your second question, further investigation and experiments are needed.

Jianlin

On 10/25/2012 8:08 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Jianlin Guo <guo@merl.com> wrote:
>      JG> Dear ROLL WG members,
>
>      JG> As we all know that loop is an open issue in RPL. Experiment shows that loop
>      JG> occurs quite often. We have proposed a loop free local DODAG
>
> Can you quantify "quite often"?
> Do you have any metrics for how often loops occur, and what the cost is
> of their repair?
>
> I think that the WG would be very very very interested in additional -experiences
> draft, or pointers to papers explaining same, that gives a repeateable
> experiment in which loops are observed.
>