[Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work
M Anand <privateanand@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2009 23:00 UTC
Return-Path: <privateanand@gmail.com>
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 75CD13A6841 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 VIrwtwY9Fjg9 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com (mail-yx0-f173.google.com [209.85.210.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43653A6CA2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe3 with SMTP id 3so1481633yxe.29 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=dcJHQiSVgCnjTbgHhu/OS6ySEhEhk5L3SmaTGnuQiHw=; b=JlijGBCzrvtH3/LUmy9V+1E99hIUOXBdczlFazzZZ5jD7mzzPXe1G+xo5oRnI6eXnC LdGX4PY+x9XPcoFWPTzNoxZjm12ZTiiagn+FLNGXHA1D0A7YBeNT9bYtLZO2VoF/u0it lt9FhQFDouXPnbw7xnlXf2RJZiK4zKA3HH+WI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=SkJGICnmhpz/VI3Q4fFxrtBdT10z/hEeQHarEMvxJoedZYzQBHYY7VFyT1CNPRYKLh 9l84X3Ae/RjmJMzIXT5QMuBEsuQWt5VNDi2YL/R9ZgTzWNCqc77hhM0+6t6Bqu/ivQ4C HrEYp+fdk0MtuM+KcTSCuPQ8zSsWlRPRbyoPk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.11.130 with SMTP id t2mr469582ibt.51.1248994850743; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f54bb0180907301559y7b8c7748h3d01b5198ef6ea09@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4A721545.8060304@ekasystems.com> <f54bb0180907301559y7b8c7748h3d01b5198ef6ea09@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:00:50 -0400
Message-ID: <f54bb0180907301600o770666aao94f75d520f2c3119@mail.gmail.com>
From: M Anand <privateanand@gmail.com>
To: roll@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000325574c9667a5bd046ff446b6"
Subject: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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, 30 Jul 2009 23:01:39 -0000
I would support adoption of draft-dt-roll-rpl-01 as a WG document based on the reasoning below. The one area of (I think quite valid) concern appears to be optimal P2P routing or lack thereof. I would make the following points with regard to this: 1. I think first there seems to be some misinterpretation because I see references to nodes within direct physical range, light switch/light etc. in the discussion. RPL as it stands would let a node in direct contact with another route directly to that node. No need to go up and down a DAG. I think this was in one of the examples in the slide presentation in the mtg. and, if I recall correctly, someone explcitly asked this question. 2. So, we are not talking about P2P route sub-optimality in RPL when there is a one-hop route. And I sure would hope that a light switch would be in direct physical range of its light. We can leave aside these cases when debating the possible P2P demerits of the present RPL. 3. The issue arises when there is a 2 or more edge shortest path between nodes in the base connectivity graph, but that path does not contain a parent common to the nodes in the induced DAG rooted at some node (LBR or other) that RPL would produce. *Significant* differences in the length of the path in the two cases, would really only arise when the base graph is very sparsely connected *and* of large diameter. I would suspect, certainly in the home, and in most cases in commercial buildings that the graphs are not like that. I am tempted to go out on a limb and leave out the "suspect" - it might be interesting to analyze a decent dataset of random graphs or actual connectivity graphs in the application scenarios if someone can produce them (oops...did I just volunteer for something ?) 4. If an application is interested in mutliple P2MP/MP2P rather than total P2P, RPL can take us there as well. 5. The DAG (or tree) formation out of the original graph is intended to simplify the routing problem and minimize state information. I would submit that the spectrum of things one can do, in order of increasing state and complexity would be: a. Induce a tree and route along it ----- suited for P2MP/MP2P b. Induce a DAG and route along it ----- same with more redundancy c. Induce multiple DAGs ----- multi - P2MP/MP2P d. Route along base graph ----- complete P2P RPL sits at b & c and occupies the solid middle ground. 5. If d is the desire, a couple of points to note (this one and #6 below). First, I think in that case there is a not a whole lot to do other than make every node maintain and disseminate routing state for every other node. Sure, we can play some tricks and prune some nodes that don't participate in the interesting paths, but all this will come with a price - and when it is paid the price will be steep - because intelligent decisions here will require global information and not local information. And it may change with time. Next thing we know, that one node that pruned itself out of the picture with regard to a certain flow, is the *the* guy for an optimal path five years later for a newly installed node and the alternative is vastly longer. Everyone can *see* there is a 2-hop path and wonder why it takes 5 hops. The point is, without knowledge of whole topology these local decisions can cause major trouble and defeat the original intent, which was optimal P2P. I would suggest that the best and only thing to do if we want to do d) is to go all the way and make sure the network can deal with the large state information. 6. I can fully understand Jerry's "diatribe", as he called it in a recent post. Rest assured Jerry, I, and I am sure many of us, have had occasion to say similar things. But I think it illustrates a point. If our radios were to do the equivalent of what the wire did for us, i.e., make every node reach every other node and create a complete graph, from a routing perspective RPL would be absolutely no worse than any P2P. If the radio did only somewhat worse in providing connectivity, RPL may correspondingly also do slightly worse. But. It would do vastly better for a several thousand node network spread over a city. 7. And that I think summarizes the argument for moving forward with RPL - not for stopping where it stands, just moving forward with it is a basis. It is not going to be everything for everyone, but I think it is going be a very large something for almost everyone, including home/bldg. control. Best regards, Anand. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:48 PM, M. B. Anand <anand@ekasystems.com> wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:34:24 +0200 > From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> > To: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org> > > > > Dear WG, > > First of all, thanks for all the time and energy you all have devoted > during the past few weeks on the protocol work. There was excellent > followup discussion at the physical WG meeting. > > To the question "Do you think that RPL provides an adequate foundation for > the ROLL routing protocol work", there was clearly a good consensus in the > WG meeting. It was also recognized there are still several open issues for > which we WILL need help from many WG contributors, including the authors of > other documents. > > Could you please confirm (or not) the adoption of draft-dt-roll-rpl-01 as > a WG document ? > > Then we will of course move to the next step. > > Thanks, > > JP and David > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll > > >
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Kris Pister
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mischa Dohler
- [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Julien Abeille (jabeille)
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Robert Power
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work dominique.barthel
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mathilde Durvy (mdurvy)
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Laurent Toutain
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Teco Boot
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Tzeta Tsao
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Zach Shelby
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Richard Kelsey
- [Roll] Data Is NOT Retained at the Node in DADR Ryusuke Masuoka
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Roger Alexander
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Hamid Mukhtar
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Robert Cragie
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jaudelice de Oliveira
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Theodore Zahariadis
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Tim Winter
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Umair Bussi
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mischa Dohler
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Shoichi Sakane
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Samita Chakrabarti
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work edward.j.beroset
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Zach Shelby
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Julien Abeille (jabeille)
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- [Roll] P2P discussion [ was RE: Moving forward wi… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Matthew.Anderson
- [Roll] MUSTing P2P states [was RE: Moving forward… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] MUSTing P2P states [was RE: Moving for… JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] MUSTing P2P states [was RE: Moving for… Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] MUSTing P2P states JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- Re: [Roll] MUSTing P2P states [was RE: Moving for… Don Sturek
- [Roll] UPDATED: Moving forward with the protocol … Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jerald.P.Martocci
- [Roll] Determining DADR Contributions Ryusuke Masuoka
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Zach Shelby
- [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Matthew.Anderson
- [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work M Anand
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mischa Dohler
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work dominique.barthel
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Kris Pister
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- [Roll] Fwd: Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur
- [Roll] Why a DAG? (was Re: Moving forward with th… Jonathan Hui
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Jonathan Hui
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Pete St. Pierre
- [Roll] good vs perfect and best and the rest. was… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Determining DADR Contributions JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Why a DAG? (was Re: Moving forward wit… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Roll] Why a DAG? (was Re: Moving forward wit… Jonathan Hui
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Moving forward with the protocol work JP Vasseur