Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Wed, 28 March 2012 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 659D021E8135 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdTjunAbd3LU for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D2E21E808F for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so2052868pbb.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ygAKM/PUgdSXycJUvbX52+3kyYcKQvj6Pd2sBxRy6gU=; b=m1qkeABdfsZHhPZ5zxaaRPeTD5c/GiQJmG+Se1XsW74VC8z6SL4ES3V24dILlIb83V 2EiR0F3AzyjfMNUgZV6VFlLuttcFEhTxmT11xJ8cANujL/M0jSOlGaBSnew55T7tt1NS GGeXS+ro+5zlfd1Qo8L+q4X5PVgySsmsfe4Uw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ygAKM/PUgdSXycJUvbX52+3kyYcKQvj6Pd2sBxRy6gU=; b=nyZTld8UZueasukWwfWIbwjlWdPVAMHupIzj3qHz/7/sjec77HeI65SAACZZpUSEdZ /T7QN0d4yRIA1+gYtEBIFwHQ8IGPYavxW15/JvfFM20T9v+jQetkvNznaUiP21yqjr5E B/PA5sgbfJwQxmnM3PJ6CEeAOeypY2rDmAQvVAMbWIqqYObPM3HObTdn31FhNzjkjPyI 56V4Y8q0smOZce1kUais5HU8QPNSwovdQcHlxzk6B0oRsr2h5+bdpJhJT5ZOxSETba1+ pNSBEMlgRJTxJ2cIdMcTra0X6A8PzQ5MO0C1fQDtUlGJbdqeRd9j9NzSK+r7m0ke6pRF XKsw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.220.137 with SMTP id pw9mr72514389pbc.122.1332951399468; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.29.18 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1981586546.1722108.1332950952120.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
References: <CAK=bVC9sR7=xSKeaoSK9BpHk1rn1Cfp6N6MGUFmzK2HppwZxsg@mail.gmail.com> <1981586546.1722108.1332950952120.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:16:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC_ybrsOm=NWc3z6OqhrKqMPTPBXjK7=G0kOfxbirG4duQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlakbbBwxVnb5gvBF3DPTIcIY02yqKL6aYoo1IDsWkM7mnNV9SxQLV6ZzUlYcHShpFV1sgT
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:16:40 -0000

Mukul,

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> wrote:
>
> >I don't see anywhere in this section that the draft is only limited to
> > 4-5 hops, as mentioned today. If the protocol can run in larger networks but
> > only for routers in maximum hop distance of 4-5, that should be spelled out
> > (together with a warning that TTL of the control messages has to be set to
> > 4-5 to avoid network wide flooding).
>
> P2P-RPL can certainly discover routes of any hop length, just that its
> application would be most useful when the target is within 4-5 hops. If the
> target is further out, the route along a global DAG might be almost as good.
> This ofcourse depends on network topology and routing metrics in use etc.

Okay, but I think that should be explicitly mentioned in the use case
section (or somewhere else).

Regards
Ulrich