Re: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions

JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> Sat, 02 June 2012 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jpv@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 C4A5821F8535 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 tSOzZyju-sor for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C51021F8534 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=2229; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338647129; x=1339856729; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2Bs5ZVSnU4r5JSbZwWNAcUK+ztK0KSf/mzZ2+CdIzKE=; b=kGoNL7FdPSuDZ9jY23XsimmDVcfvRRydCMlEM9f81OV6dJmm9toPI/qr uVaDZb1eA+c6E6dRSfdg9niH1o+yv0wt5a5FfKwozKYZGjQ1gzmdkfowD Ne0u4t0cCH1QluO/MvAo2PsI4fNWSj5bR/YF85OgTSNqAd4HOoLGA/eCa M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAKwhyk+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFtB2BB4IYAQEBAwEBAQEPASc0CwULC0YnMAYBEiKHZAQBC5dSnxmLEYUwYAOVG4EPhEGIQIFmgmI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,701,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="44823203"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2012 14:25:28 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q52EPSjr003609; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:25:28 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.79]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:28 -0700
Received: from [10.60.114.229] ([10.60.114.229]) by xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:28 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD802FA452B@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:35:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <71D540B5-B2E9-4B5C-AE11-ECAA6E18655C@cisco.com>
References: <12418.1337957631@marajade.sandelman.ca> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD802FA32EF@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <31164.1337974189@marajade.sandelman.ca> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD802FA452B@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "roll@ietf.org WG" <roll@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2012 14:25:29.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F614DF0:01CD40CB]
Subject: Re: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions
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: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:25:29 -0000

Agree with Pascal - for information there was a discussion about 2 years on the subject matter and there was a consensus
not to try to either mix metrics/constraints (which IMO is the right thing to do even if it leads to sub-optimality or disconnected
areas) or try to make use of default metrics.

On May 28, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

> Hello Micheal
> 
>>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Thubert <(pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>> writes:
>    Pascal> I think RPL does not want to take party there. The OF is a
>    Pascal> piece of logic to tie metrics and policies together.  
> 
> My question is:
> 
> - do the nodes of a DODAG have to use the same metrics to pick a parent,
>  (and if so, how do they agree)
>  I think that they do not, so long as they use an algorithm (such as
>  MRHOF) which has certain properties.
> 
> [Pascal]  The current spec requires that all players of an instance play by the same rule, that is same OF, in order to guarantee the expected result. 
> The goal there was deeper than the OF, like same OF with same parameterization. MRHOF is generic and allows various incarnations, depending in the metrics; all those incarnations are to be seen as different OFs WRT to RPL 's uniqueness rule.
> 
> Note that this rule is not for looplessness, the Rank would assure that anyway.
> 
> 
> - if we had multiple RPL instances in an LLN, using different metrics,
>  then we would have multiple RPL Instances and DODAGs.  The different
>  set of metrics would not co-exist in the same RPL Instance.
> 
> [Pascal] I think we agree. An instance can use multiple metrics bound by some logic. But those metrics and that logic must be identical throughout the instance. 
> A different (set of) metric means a different OF even if MRHOF is behind both.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> -- 
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works 
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll