Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 07 June 2012 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 3E30C11E8154 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 IP3uYXEPkGf8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EADC21F8523 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; l=2669; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339105749; x=1340315349; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Hu4chfzFHJ5kFaEFkX/7WNp5eBuww//SjgmjS5K6IQA=; b=OjIddSK6Bevahq2vFfmxoLZVirawXA3nF/UvO9ePIjOlTwP/RqaRYYt6 6eHgG8FEIERcunAyt8thqj+p/gqoOVni/unsIRc1kSYuI6JyYGtis5flt Arl9IbtDh4br68rL9Fhv/I5W382keJfv6WqXD9zA/3ghgJhbpibqzDB84 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPkg0U+tJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFDrQ/gQeCGAEBAQMBAQEBDwEnNAsFCwIBCA4KChQQJwslAgQBDQUIGodkBQuZKp9vBIsdhSBgA6MxgWaCJzk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,732,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="90554081"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2012 21:49:09 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q57Ln9An003926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:49:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.238]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:49:08 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
Thread-Index: AQHNROaHASEccMIy+EC596uJfU+pA5bvYuSA
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:49:08 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:49:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD806E78F8F@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <831338825.521366.1338009982543.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> <8EFE80AF-3E7C-494E-8237-C63E6ECDAE7E@gmail.com> <53E28E3B-4C73-4BD3-BCFE-2C669FC3FA1D@cs.stanford.edu> <CAC8E858-8215-4BC8-98C6-962109324BED@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8E858-8215-4BC8-98C6-962109324BED@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.101.223]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-6.800.1017-18954.001
x-tm-as-result: No--33.458100-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Haberman Brian <brian@innovationslab.net>, roll <roll@ietf.org>, Stiemerling Martin <mstiemerling@googlemail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Ralph's DISCUSS on MRHOF spec
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, 07 Jun 2012 21:49:10 -0000

On Jun 6, 2012, at 10:43 AM 6/6/12, Philip Levis wrote:

> Responses inline.
> 
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> 
>>> 
>> 
>> My question here is why a single objective function "MRHOF" is defined to use several different metrics.  My understanding is that any specific RPL instance will use one metric as its "selected metric" for MRHOF.  Another way to organize the objective functions would be to define a different OF number for each metric, binding the OF number to the selected metric.
> 
> This was a design decision made early in RPL. There were two options: OFs are metric-specific, or OFs can be general with respect to metrics. The design team concluded the second approach was better, as the former would lead to a possibly huge number of OFs that would be hard to manage.

Now that a real OF has actually been designed and specified, perhaps this would be a good time to reconfirm that design decision.

Given that MRHOF is a pretty general objective function, and works over 5 (or perhaps 3) metrics, 16 bits would seem to provide plenty of code points for metric-specific OFs.

A bigger issue, I think, is expressing the semantics or behavior of an OF in its OCP.  I read section 18.6 of RFC 6550 to indicate that a node will use information including the OF (as indicated by the OCP) to compare against the node's policy for joining a DODAG.  As an aside, is there a reason why a node would choose to join a specific DODAG within a RPL Instance and on what basis would it make that choice?  Anyway, wouldn't the selected metric  used by MRHOF in a particular RPL Instance be a useful parameter for the policy rules?  For example, I can imagine a node preferring to join a RPL Instance providing minimal latency over one providing best ETX.  If the OCP is metric-specific, that selected metric will be immediately available for the policy rules.


[Pascal] I agree with Ralph here. I fail to be convinced that there will an explosion of OCPs if we fail to factorize the metrics. But I see how the device implementation can be simplified if the OCP says it all. Also, we do not want to force a device that implements MRHOF to have to implement all metrics in the I-D. Conversely, say we extend MrHof to other metrics with further work, wouldn't it become OCP 2 anyway? I wouldn't mind blocking OCP 1..9 for current and future MrHof metric variations.

Cheers,
 
- Ralph

> 
> Phil
> 

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll