[Roll] mixture of storing and non-storing nodes

Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu> Tue, 21 August 2012 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
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 3373621F87B6 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6GEKFDnSIQuQ for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4248C21F87B7 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBFB23CA84 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:31:56 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.uh.edu
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sp5Nf3Y1t9N1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:31:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from it.cs.uh.edu (www2.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.6]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D82923CA8A for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:31:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by it.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911392A2807B for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:35:09 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so5911329qca.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.201.195 with SMTP id kc3mr15306997vec.12.1345566718314; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.198.41 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:31:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAErDfUQV2E5H66k9YjRSGF8RmA=xhQzrDwpyTRBJ8WQUZh3diw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [Roll] mixture of storing and non-storing nodes
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: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:32:03 -0000

Dear ROLL WG,

John Ko posted a draft a few days ago about how we might accommodate a
mixture of storing and non-storing nodes in a network more efficiently
than making one of them leaf nodes. Searching through the ROLL mail
archives, it was clear at the time that there was no use case for
having a network that has a mixture of storing and non-storing nodes.
I wonder if this is necessarily true if there are devices from
multiple vendors. At the time, it was also speculated that the mixture
could also introduce unknown problems and no one seems to have a
working solution. The draft describes one of the problems that could
occur if we try to form a multi-hop network with storing and
non-storing nodes. That is a concrete first step towards getting a
handle on the challenge of having nodes with different capabilities in
a network.

Your guidance on whether this is an important problem worth working on
or the work is heading in a wrong direction would help evolve or stop
the work.

Thanks.

- om_p