Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 05 July 2019 13:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 13FDC12006D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 06:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 JdqJ8zKbaVa1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 06:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB642120026 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 06:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 200116b824c6c000b492295ea1b7a8f3.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:24c6:c000:b492:295e:a1b7:a8f3]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hjOKL-0007qD-0S; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:32:37 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565C62C5B9AAADCB9173F16D8F50@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:32:36 +0200
Cc: Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1AC88ACD-4A7F-4E72-97E5-84548BC78557@kuehlewind.net>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESswJ0TozAJCa4o0nJOvGToi-324M4CY9beWWQmOB-Cp6PQ@mail.gmail.com> <781F0E6E-5F97-49C4-8E5C-3933088D87E7@kuehlewind.net> <MN2PR11MB35659BA8A9C5D1A810DF9A1DD8FA0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <40B8B554-40C5-43E8-ACB0-C10F89C085EA@kuehlewind.net> <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF30F64@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <MN2PR11MB3565C62C5B9AAADCB9173F16D8F50@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1562333562;1a165d1e;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hjOKL-0007qD-0S
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/7AuH6P1-P-gZm-vg1jLo1QV82Yw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:32:45 -0000
Hi all, RFC8085 recommend a maximum sending of one packet per 3 sec (if the RTT is unknown). This seems to be also a plausible mininum retry interval for your scenarios described below. Can we just add that as a requirement (as original proposed in my discuss)? Also would be okay to define the maximum of 6 retries as a requirement? Mirja > On 5. Jul 2019, at 14:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > > Looks good to me, Rahul > > All the best, > > Pascal > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rahul Arvind Jadhav <rahul.jadhav@huawei.com> >> Sent: vendredi 5 juillet 2019 14:30 >> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> >> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>; Mirja >> Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>; Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> >> Subject: RE: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters >> >> Can we add something like; >> >> The DCO retry time should be dependent on the maximum depth of the >> network and average per hop latency. Thus this could range from 2 sec to 120 >> seconds depending on the deployment. The number of retries could be set >> between 2 to 6 depending upon how critical the route invalidation could be >> for the deployment and the link layer retry configuration. For networks >> supporting only MP2P and P2MP flows, such as in AMI and telemetry >> applications, the 6LRs may not be very keen to invalidate routes, unless they >> are highly memory-constrained. For home and building automation networks, >> with P2P traffic, the 6LRs might be keen to invalidate efficiently because it >> may additionally impact the forwarding efficiency. >> Note that the DCO might in turn be retried at link layer if link layer supports >> Ack for unicast packets. In such cases where link layer employs retry- >> mechanism for unicast packets, retrying more than 3 times may not be >> necessary, depending on link layer retry configuration. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Regards, >> Rahul >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind >> Sent: 04 July 2019 19:28 >> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> >> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters >> >> I think that is also a good additional to have. I would recommend to discus >> the boundaries in both directions: what the maximum rate I should ever to >> for in order to not permanently overload the network and what are the usual >> considerations to set these parameters correctly for my use case. >> >> Mirja >> >> >>> On 4. Jul 2019, at 13:22, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> You have a point there, Mirja. >>> >>> UDP over LLNs may have to live with durations that are 1 to 2 orders of >> magnitude longer than usual in more classical links these days. It can take a >> minute and more to get a message through. >>> >>> So yes, a bit of text that says that the typical latencies and turn-around-trip >> delays observed on the Internet and the default settings that derive from that >> may not apply in LLNs and need to be revisited depending on the link type >> and the number of hops in case of a mesh network. >>> >>> Is that what you are indicating to us? >>> >>> Pascal >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> >>>> Sent: jeudi 4 juillet 2019 13:05 >>>> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >>>> <pthubert@cisco.com> >>>> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> My request wasn’t to specify this in detail for every scenario, it >>>> was to set boundaries about what's safe to do. The 3 seconds I >>>> mentions are the recommendation given in RFC8085, however, if you >>>> have a good reason to use different values that possible but it would >>>> be good to provide more reasoning then about when it is still safe to >>>> use the values and when it should be avoided. >>>> >>>> Mirja >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 4. Jul 2019, at 12:44, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On June 27, 2019 at 1:54:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >>>> (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>>> RPL is designed to operate in very different environment, and some >>>>>> LLNs >>>> can be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 >>>> refrains from being too specific. >>>>>> Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that the values used >>>>>> for DCO >>>> are expected to be similar/consistent with those used in DAO? >>>>> I agree with Pascal. In fact, the diversity of environments not >>>>> only makes it >>>> very hard to be too specific, but it is one of the reasons the WG has >>>> produced Applicability Statements for them: not all deployments are the >> same. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Alvaro. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
- [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Rahul Arvind Jadhav
- Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters Mirja Kuehlewind