IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu> Sat, 10 September 2011 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <gnawali@cs.stanford.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 489EB21F888A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 T4oHJz8QDtd2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FF021F8565 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]) by cs-smtp-3.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1R2Eqg-0006HO-Ef for roll@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:07:22 -0700
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so770367yxt.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.39.230 with SMTP id s6mr436358pbk.11.1315627641069; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.155.16 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 21:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BDF612E3788C4C4791A1A49AC3CB7C971CE5D201FD@IE2RD2XVS211.red002.local>
References: <1315036465.46782.YahooMailNeo@web113917.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <CA88C6F0.A961%d.sturek@att.net> <1315264959.82194.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <CAErDfUTyfNuuQFhugDhgB0rQatR2wuRoqS60E5djOAdZy45Aog@mail.gmail.com> <CAK=bVC9P4eWoSBsJM+aR94MfvqfmsLcOJNXr-27GyOYmRn3G0Q@mail.gmail.com> <BDF612E3788C4C4791A1A49AC3CB7C971CE5D201FD@IE2RD2XVS211.red002.local>
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:07:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAErDfUSxB0XcuSNjkmcN=e0zaK7e=p_8=ZsXQ_S6SZVUwGaNBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Scan-Signature: d568c20fab0e2ccae07d583947984559
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document
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, 10 Sep 2011 04:05:28 -0000

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:40 AM, C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link.
>
>
>
> As mentioned in the sentence, this is related to the TinyRPL/BLIP
> implementation of RPL runing on TelosB nodes.
>
> TelosB offers 48K of ROM and 10K of RAM.
>
> As far as I understand, the 30 nodes limitation is related to the TelosB
> architecture (RAM size in particular) and not RPL.
>
> Because TelosB has been designed in 2004, we can expect that platforms used
> for RPL deployments of today may have quite different characteristics.
>
>
>
> Author may complete my understanding.

Thank you for sharing the paper and also your commentary.

We should be concerned about the state requirement of the storing
mode. However, we should not extrapolate these results too far beyond
the constraints we worked with in our experiments.

- om_p

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email