Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

that means writing "one RPL instance" in figure 3 in stead of "RPL 
instance" to remove that ambiguity.
Writing in the use case section a phrase as the one below will be more 
than sufficient for me.

peter

Ines  Robles schreef op 2016-05-24 12:16:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> We are just considering here one RPLInstance.
> 
> Working with different RPLInstances, involves deeply analysis, which
> we could do in the future. But, actually I dont know if it is
> possible/useful to send a message from one RPL Instance to another one
> , since for example a RPL node may belong to multiple RPL Instances,
> and it may act as a router in some and as a leaf in others[1], for
> this reason it does not make sense to me sending packet from one
> RPLInstance to other RPLInstance. Besides the control messages has one
> field for RPLInstanceID, it does not have RPLInstanceID origen or
> RPLInstanceID dst.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Ines
> 
> [1] RFC6550. Section 5. RFC 6550 describes only how a single instance
> behaves
> 
> 2016-05-24 12:17 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>:
> 
>> I also did not see a mapping of flow from one RPL instance to
>> another instance.
>> 
>> I do not understand this. Could you please clarify?
> 
>  A node belonging to one RPL instance sends a message to a node
> belonging to another RPL instance.
> This seems possible in Figure 3, with 3 RPL instances?
> 
> If possible, it means an additional use case.
> 
> Peter