Re: [Roll] question about broken link detection

"Don Sturek" <d.sturek@att.net> Thu, 06 January 2011 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32ACA3A6DF3 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.624
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.524, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Os2C0O9hJHD for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.84.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 19B2D3A6E1E for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 1283 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2011 14:19:43 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1294323583; bh=J1PTvcf4v9V19NyNc5pFXM5NSFNuqLwtP4JnbLn1k+Q=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Reply-To:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=KEeCNHTMRaFlje9MkG7yx2Mc1yAITBEKt56VHOHfDukXVXVWBZWqxb0wnac//mYJsKIQxL289KJAbhlecsAQswVQTDul9Qn1SGXFZS3a4JYH2Jys3twsxSEecW375BUHW7Kg9XEJehQW6sLaLc53yNcmXBbCBuATqMX8mm3FcR8=
Received: from Studio (d.sturek@69.108.48.164 with login) by smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 06 Jan 2011 06:19:40 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-YMail-OSG: dzbMbPMVM1kdC8nMjX_2Yw.3EhTkhoXy7yHFkcQgDNlEtfE AtzHc8ih.VZEd2pl__RSf2mEZb8b1BB9q23fW3NMrQWp50uMyRs7ab5LF233 nxHejNb1QlY5znEM9Qo1vEkGXvsYTx_yr77op.fTyIrKSP.gXdMbQwGyiAWD NN8dlRZ3fLtGn5M2rKf_IVdzWZ6b.wAztmz3I0dg5778E3T3ePgp7MxifppW Kc7myJR2IxhFaizGHM8bhaZakxg7ZprIk7ghvx.v6VMkDJdJGAxBi_d8a7Gm JaG67.eFllDgWfqOFrRlNwGMcx4._uZ7q7GF8kwaXF9WRc3.ddO7xAlis_z5 2DLw-
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: "'Jetcheva, Jorjeta'" <Jorjeta.Jetcheva@itron.com>, roll@ietf.org
References: <0368F388C03BB34BBBFA73209849D47A063CC3A8@ITR-EXMBXVS-2.itron.com>
In-Reply-To: <0368F388C03BB34BBBFA73209849D47A063CC3A8@ITR-EXMBXVS-2.itron.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:19:33 -0800
Message-ID: <007001cbadac$be545890$3afd09b0$@sturek>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0071_01CBAD69.B0311890"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcurelGPfOoVdv2LTtCiRV+fh7U09ACMh72Q
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [Roll] question about broken link detection
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: d.sturek@att.net
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 06 Jan 2011 14:17:45 -0000

Hi Jorjeta,

 

I think the point to point draft
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dt-roll-p2p-rpl/) attempts to take up
the issue of pro-active route repair using RPL.   I have not closely
followed the draft but know that was in scope.

 

Don

 

 

From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jetcheva, Jorjeta
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:14 AM
To: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] question about broken link detection

 

Hi everyone,

 

Happy New Year!

 

I am trying to understand how RPL deals with broken links in non-storing
mode so I wanted to run several scenarios by the group.  When a packet is
transmitted downstream and reaches a broken link, e.g., from node A to node
B,  and the transmitting node (node A) doesn't get a link layer ack from the
downstream next hop (node B) after sending several retransmissions, it can
send an ICMP destination unreachable packet to the root.  The root can then
try to use other routes it has to the destination or if it doesn't know of
any other ones, it can:

 

1.        Increment its DTSN, triggering all nodes in the DODAG to send it a
DAO, at which point the downstream node adjacent to the broken link (node B)
will detect that the link to its parent (node A) is broken and will select a
new preferred parent (assuming it has other possible parents) and send a
DAO.

2.       Wait for the downstream node in the broken link (node B) to detect
that its parent (node A) is not reachable 

A.      When the downstream node (Node B) observes that it hasn't gotten a
DIO from its parent (node A) for a while, and it would select a new
preferred parent (assuming it has other possible parents) and send a DAO to
the root

B.      If traffic happens to be flowing upstream, the lack of per-hop/link
layer acks would indicate the upstream parent (node A) is no longer
reachable and a new parent will be selected, and a DAO would be sent to the
root.

Are these the options for detecting a broken link when forwarding a packet
downstream in non-storing mode?  Is there a preferred mechanism for this?

 

Thanks!

 

Jorjeta