Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 06 May 2012 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 45AD421F8573 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 17:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 2bZOoTlfEZWk for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 17:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8F321F854B for <Roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 17:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q460EgI5032492; Sun, 6 May 2012 01:14:42 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([63.68.157.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q460Ecxm032454 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 6 May 2012 01:14:41 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Mukul Goyal'" <mukul@uwm.edu>, "'Federico Consoli'" <admin@ipv6it.org>
References: <4FA562FF.5090909@ipv6it.org> <643639228.281047.1336239849113.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <643639228.281047.1336239849113.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 01:14:37 +0100
Message-ID: <048a01cd2b1d$3b5d7940$b2186bc0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIASLz6x0OpoF/GnASAsFBQFAOwTJZVqCjQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: Roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Sun, 06 May 2012 00:14:56 -0000

Hi,

Can I make a suggestion?

draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl is targeted at publication as an Experimental.

Could you enhance the text around the suggested defaults and the guidance to
expand a little on what the problems might be, and encourage specific
experimentation and reports back to the WG?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mukul
> Goyal
> Sent: 05 May 2012 18:44
> To: Federico Consoli
> Cc: Roll@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
> 
> I have no further comment to make. I think we disgree on this point.
> 
> Thanks
> Mukul
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Federico Consoli" <admin@ipv6it.org>
> To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
> Cc: Roll@ietf.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 12:27:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
> 
> Il 05/05/2012 19.18, Mukul Goyal ha scritto:
> >> [Mukul2]
> >> You described two separate scenarios:
> >> 1) A has 15 neighbors, B has just A as the neighbor.
> >> 2) Both A and B have 15 neighbors including each other.
> >>
> >> In the second scenario, K=1 definitely makes sense because there are many
> candidate paths and one such path to B would probably be discovered even
> though many of B's neighbors would end up suppressing their DIOs. It is
possible
> that the discovered route wont pass through A.
> > [Federico3]
> > I think this is the problem, the fact that the node B does not have full
> > information about the status of his neighborhood. In the second scenario
> > node B will use a path almost certainly worse to reach a neighbor of the
> > node A.
> >
> > [Mukul3]
> > IMHO, there is no problem. There is no need for B to know the route through
> each neighbor. All it needs to know is one path that meets the constraints
> specified by the origin. The need to avoid too many DIO transmissions is
critical
> and K in default configuration option is set to reflect this priority.
> [Federico4]
> Yes but the information about the route through each neighbor is very
> important for the objective function.
> 
> > Thanks
> > Mukul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > Roll@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> 
> --
> Regards
> Consoli Federico
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll