Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 02 March 2020 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 C2B673A0F52 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:11:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gSfh2XWVRZRo for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F56E3A0F36 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD353897A for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:10:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B96EE6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:11:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <49ac5fc3-4a3c-fb87-d366-eb7e7cfd60df@mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <CAP+sJUfcEY2DNEQV=duJdN6P8zZn0ccuei+4ra-B6TcLb5z8Kg@mail.gmail.com> <49ac5fc3-4a3c-fb87-d366-eb7e7cfd60df@mimuw.edu.pl>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:11:45 -0500
Message-ID: <18233.1583176305@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/3fz2zRas3bE5qIVHKEgkFvMSCi0>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Border router failure detection
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:11:49 -0000

Welcome!

Konrad Iwanicki <iwanicki@mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
    > In a nutshell, I would like to propose an extension to RPL that had been
    > invented to significantly improve handling crashes of border routers. Since I
    > have little experience writing RFC-like drafts, I would greatly appreciate
    > any help.

Use the markdown method, and use someone's template github.

    > What we observed, however, is that RPL does not efficiently handle crashes of
    > border routers [1][2]. Upon such a failure, tearing down nonexistent upward
    > routes can take a lot of time (depending on the data-plane traffic) and
    > generate considerable control traffic, which is problematic in many
    > applications.

Rahul and Pascal (and others) have had a lot of conversation about how we
deal with the various lollipop counters.  So I am interested in what your
border router does when it boots: how does it announce the new DIOs?

    > What we did to address the problem was developing an algorithm, called RNFD,
    > in which nodes collaborate to monitor the state of a border router of the
    > DODAG they belong to [1]. Experiments with a TinyOS implementation of the
    > algorithm on two testbeds (32 nodes at 2.4GHz and 76 nodes at 868MHz) and in
    > simulations show that it can outperform bare RPL: it can detect a border
    > router crash one or two orders of magnitude faster and with much lower
    > control traffic [1].

okay.

    > [1] K. Iwanicki: “RNFD: Routing-Layer Detection of DODAG (Root) Node Failures
    > in Low-Power Wireless Networks,” in IPSN 2016: Proceedings of the 15th
    > ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor
    > Networks. IEEE. Vienna, Austria. April 2016. pp. 1—12. DOI:
    > 10.1109/IPSN.2016.7460720

Unfortunately, it's behind the IEEE paywall.
I have given up on getting documents from the IEEE.
I guess you have been working on this for at least five years now.

    > [2] A. Paszkowska and K. Iwanicki: “Failure Handling in RPL Implementations:
    > An Experimental Qualitative Study,” in Mission-Oriented Sensor Networks and
    > Systems: Art and Science (Habib M. Ammari ed.). Springer International
    > Publishing. Cham, Switzerland. September 2019. pp. 49—95. DOI:
    > 10.1007/978-3-319-91146-5_3

    > [3] P. Ciolkosz: “Integration of the RNFD Algorithm for Border Router Failure
    > Detection with the RPL Standard for Routing IPv6 Packets,” Master's Thesis,
    > University of Warsaw. November 2019.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-