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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Fri, 25 May 2012 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C304521F873A for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KfZnLF5NVun for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A2021F8723 for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4319; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337963478; x=1339173078; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=UHZWlkmIdeW2RIrqR/kdFEjcX2i3yQk8Hd+vCb6iaJc=; b=etshHkAZi1X/1U9N1VXT5IpvxVCaVFaKAB+v+Eo4mpGG25ynifQ3GyVm FBTDI/hw5GYSNxjXH7FvEBnzUBjw/Vo5tuBGxKTs1t4HMhk8W09ShUr1s AJL/DEqOghzRRiqjkN6gyG324kCyGfEvflNb0jaYjY4YtTUkgvW2YvfV1 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,657,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="86506369"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 25 May 2012 16:31:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4PGVHkC018526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 25 May 2012 16:31:17 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 25 May 2012 11:31:17 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Michael Richardson <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions
Thread-Index: AQHNOoZBXefq0YiVp0SFfBMSzRPcLZbasPuA
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:31:16 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:31:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--26.763200-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:31:18 -0000

Hi Michael:

I think RPL does not want to take party there. The OF is a piece of logic to tie metrics and policies together. 
As such, there could be multiple metrics as long as there is good logic to tie them in. for instance one would look at optimizing metric A within contraints as expressed by metric B and the OF model will allow that.

OTOH, it a flows requires a certain optimization (say per one metric) and another requires something different, then certainly you want two instances.

So ... it depends!


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: vendredi 25 mai 2012 16:54
Subject: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions

Ralph asked some questions a few days ago.
His originally DISCUSS is at:

This was my reply.    I am particularly interested in replies from
Pascal, Anders and Mukul about my assertion about how we would never pick RPL instances by metrics; that they would in fact be seperate RPL Instance numbers and DODAG values, and that these things would provisioned by the network installer.


I'm going to reply to your comments in a different order than you asked them, because I think question #3 is most important, and the rest fall out of it.

>>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Droms <> writes:
    Ralph> 3. Based on (1) and (2), would configuration and selection
    Ralph> issues be ameliorated if the five candidate selected metrics
    Ralph> were each asssigned a separate objective function?  Use of a
    Ralph> separate OF code point for each of the five possible selected
    Ralph> metrics would allow multiple RPL instances.

I think that it's important to understand that ROLL has a whole palette of things that need to be provisioned by the "network operator".

In contrast to the situation of ISPs and customers, where the ISP is the network operator, ROLL networks are more like highly orchestrated
Enterprises: "all your host belong to us"

so, when we write something like:
    "The metric chosen by the network operator to use for path
in section 2, we really mean:
    "The metric chosen by the network operator and provisioned into
    the node when the firmware was flashed to use for path selection."

Ralph> 1.  Why is one objective function defined for several potential 
Ralph> metrics?  The details of MRHOF seem to preclude the establishment 
Ralph> of several RPL instances in an LLN, each of which uses MRHOF with 
Ralph> a different selected metric.

If one had many different RPL Instances, then we would have different
RPL Instance numbers in the RPL header.   There can be many different
DODAG ("destinations") created within that instance.  The instances share a common set of (provisioned) parameters.

(To put it into DHCP terms: if we have multiple DHCP servers on a link,  then one would expect them to all offer IP addresses in the same subnet.
 If one wanted to have addresses in different subnets, and let the host  pick between them, then, one would need different layer-2s: different  VLANs or ESSIDs, or... )

If you feel that RPL is rather schizo about provisioning vs configuration, then I agree.  It's not always clear to me why some things are advertised while others are provisioned.

In BGPv4, we calculate metrics by adding AS entries in the path.
(It's always additive), and we add at least one AS entry to the path.
One can AS-stuff and add more, but proper operation of BGP does not depend upon the exact algorithm used.

Finally, my impression is that how the various metrics are used (singly, or in some combination) to calculate Rank Increase is a question of further research, experimentation, and trade secret.  

So long as the Rank increases, and a node does not flap between parents, the exact details do not matter.  Each node can do it's parent selection based upon the available metrics on it's own.  It advertises the metrics it has.

I hope the authors will correct me if I'm completely off here.