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

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sat, 05 May 2012 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=4655d8005=mukul@uwm.edu>
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 2054921F85A5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hWAW+AxJ5LnQ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A8021F859E for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 10:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEADlgpU9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABFhXKwHCNxGgINGQJZBoghmRaOPokaiQmBL45YgRgEiGSNGpBCgwc
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FF0E6A8D for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 12:18:04 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ujI+t85zur5D for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 12:18:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7762E6A8C for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 12:18:03 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 12:18:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1039288746.280931.1336238283627.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1551139513.280929.1336238190771.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [99.20.249.193]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.15_GA_2995 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.15_GA_2995)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
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
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, 05 May 2012 17:18:05 -0000

> [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.

Thanks
Mukul