Re: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-03.txt

Koojana,

In terms of why the DIS is sent at different intervals is rather simple to explain. A Trickle Timer is typically used when the network is stable and nothing needs to happen. At least this is the philosophy I tried to follow when implementing TinyRPL. However, when a node is NOT connected, this indicates that the network is not stable AT ALL. Therefore, it should try to aggressively find a next hop node rather than to save power. The goal of the node should be, at this point, to connect to a DODAG. 

Furthermore, it is not really necessary to install the root last in a RPL deployment. I don't see why this HAS TO be the case. If you install the root first, then nodes will quickly connect to the network and the Trickle Timer for DIO packets will start operating. 

Thanks!

-John

------
JeongGil Ko
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Computer Science
Johns Hopkins University
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jgko

On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Koojana Kuladinithi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I read your draft. We have done some tests with TinyRPL (RPL implementation
> in TinyOS) in container filled with fruits.
> In one test, we had a situation that the border router (RPL root node) was
> disconnected for several hours. The sensor nodes start sending DIS
> (DIS-INTERVAL was set to 3 sec for this test). We found that this degrades
> the use of  battery voltage. One alternative is to use a higher value for
> DIS-INTERVAL.
> 
> In real deployment, the RPL root node should setup at the last, after
> loading all the sensors. 
> 
> I would like to know ->
> 
> Why is DIS sending at a constant interval (I am not sure this is set
> constant only in the implementation)? Should it be adaptive if it does not
> receive a DIO? 
> Is this an issue ("setting of DIS INTERVAL for different cases") that your
> draft should address?
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Koojana  
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Omprakash Gnawali
>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 2:36 AM
>> To: ROLL WG
>> Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gnawali-roll-
>> rpl-recommendations-03.txt
>> 
>> Dear ROLL WG,
>> 
>> I just refreshed this draft with comments from JP, Cedric, Joakim, and
>> Ulrich. Please keep your comments coming, especially those who have
>> implemented and deployed RPL.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> - om_p
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From:  <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:34 AM
>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>> draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-03.txt
>> To: gnawali@cs.uh.edu
>> Cc: pal@cs.stanford.edu
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-03.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Omprakash Gnawali and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>> 
>> Filename:        draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations
>> Revision:        03
>> Title:           Recommendations for Efficient Implementation of RPL
>> Creation date:   2012-03-10
>> WG ID:           Individual Submission
>> Number of pages: 6
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   RPL is a flexible routing protocol applicable to a wide range of Low
>>   Power and Lossy Networks.  To enable this wide applicability, RPL
>>   provides many configuration options and gives implementers choices on
>>   how to implement various components of RPL.  Drawing on our
>>   experiences, we distill the design choices and configuration
>>   parameters that lead to efficient RPL implementations and operations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 