Re: [Roll] AMI applicability: storing/non-storing.

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Turner, Randy <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Could there be a "hybrid-storing" mode that doesn't use as much RAM to
    > contain routes to all nodes in a sub-tree? Instead of traditional
    > storing mode, could a node store just multicast memberships in all
    > nodes "below" a particular mote ?  Assuming there would much fewer
    > multicast memberships than would be required for RFC 6550 storing mode
    > ?  It's a variant of storing+multicast, without the traditional storing
    > mode RAM usage. 

Yes there could be, but it needs more research.  
There was at least one ID in the past year discussion how this could be
supported.   

The problem is not generally deep in the DODAG, as the fan out
means that there are few children, thus they fit into ram.  The problem is
closer to the top, where there are more children than fit.

There was significant discussion on the list and at meetings a few years ago;
look 6 months before the publication date of 6550.  
As I recall, one can not just keep some routes and not others due to how
parents might change.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/