Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-03

Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> Tue, 30 March 2010 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
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 9AE7F3A6AAE for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.557, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1HKQq8eNJJw5 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED0D3A6850 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dnab404680.stanford.edu ([171.64.70.128]) by cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1NwfFo-0003Ly-3G; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:30 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <e9ba5eb81003300046h10eb34cbmb74cb4fb22e5359c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:29:27 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B33A68D5-C90B-4139-BE17-12D35D6C9F64@cs.stanford.edu>
References: <19e8ae197e37.197e3719e8ae@drexel.edu> <e9ba5eb81003300046h10eb34cbmb74cb4fb22e5359c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joydeep Tripathi <joydeep.tripathi@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e263c829a24e9e508d860775f9d44fb
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tripathi-roll-rpl-simulation-03
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: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:29:01 -0000

On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Joydeep Tripathi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We published another draft on Simulation results of RPL. In this
> revision, we added path stretch and delay metric comparison of the
> packets in RPL routing with shortest path routing. We also added
> Simulation results of RPL in a typical home/building routing traffic
> scenario. Thanks to Jerry for providing the details of message length
> and distribution in such a network. Note, we did not attempt to use
> any random topology with a random link quality, cause that might not
> provide us with intuition into how real deployment may behave in
> presence of link quality variation and link PDR distribution. We also
> simulate RPL with a 86 node topology, and in process of simulating it
> in another real network of few thousand nodes.
> 
> This simulation study shows, the path stretch is very less in
> the home/building routing scenario. Also, the delay bound in RPL is
> not worse than that of shortest path routing, showing P2P routing in
> RPL a viable option for this kind of applications in terms of Path quality.
> 
> Looking forward to any comments/suggestions.
> 

Joydeep,

I have concerns with the simulation methodology. In particular:

1) Links are selected randomly. Links in real networks can be correlated in behavior, either due to hardware variations or correlated environmental effects (e.g., interference). The problem with random selection is that as a node has more links, it will inevitably have some good ones. In practice this isn't always true (e.g., a node is near an interference source). This will lead the simulation results to think that RPL behaves better than it does in practice.

2) Links vary on the time scale of 10 minutes and have iid losses within those ten minute intervals. Links are bursty, and protocols respond to bursty losses very differently than iid ones. In particular, retransmission policies.

I'm a big fan of simulation as a debugging tool to find problems early and easily. I'm just very wary of using it for any kind of definite conclusion.

Phil