IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?

Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <richard.kelsey@ember.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 3896F21F8650 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, 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 F6-Un9FwuSeJ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p01c11o148.mxlogic.net (p01c11o148.mxlogic.net [208.65.144.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C2221F864E for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO p01c11o148.mxlogic.net) by p01c11o148.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.13.0-3) with ESMTP id 3a46c7f4.788c2940.160822.00-533.318207.p01c11o148.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <richard.kelsey@ember.com>); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:11:31 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c64a35208acd6-db09035c725abc20621606252ada5fbf935d615b
Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO usmail.ember.com) by p01c11o148.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.13.0-3) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 1a46c7f4.0.160797.00-357.318147.p01c11o148.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <richard.kelsey@ember.com>); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:11:30 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c64a22c44d868-6756d4f68cacf52e89ce42b65d7e23197d256b49
Received: from kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com (192.168.81.75) by usmail.ember.com (192.168.80.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:13:01 -0400
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:10:35 -0400
Message-ID: <87sjgj8rdg.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1449714963.1808443.1333549906211.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> (message from Mukul Goyal on Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:31:46 -0500)
From: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
References: <1449714963.1808443.1333549906211.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.81.75]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [216.236.254.3]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=u0NvnAFnSA0A:10 a=u-k6GrH3DusA:10 a=saA6nF2ZJa]
X-AnalysisOut: [AA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=MYqPJgym4Kx47q1P90kooQ==:17 a=BF]
X-AnalysisOut: [oovdJ-q0XCfr0W7uAA:9]
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?
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, 04 Apr 2012 15:11:32 -0000

> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:31:46 -0500
> From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
>
> Let me modify my statement a little:
> 
> Transient DAGs used in P2P-RPL are floating by their very
> nature. Their lifetime is fleetingly small. They are not used for
> routing. They impart no connectivity to the nodes joining them.

Mukul,

We are talking past each other.  From my point of view, grounded
is the general case.  A floating DODAG is created for a specific
purpose, P2P routing between nodes other than the root.  The fact
that the P2P-RPL DAGs impart no connectivity means that they are
definitely not floating.

In any case, I think that the important thing is to have the P2P
DODAGs all either set G to 0 or to 1.  I think it should be 1,
but requiring that it be 0 is better than leaving it unspecified.

                                     -Richard Kelsey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email