Re: [Roll] "Node energy" as a metric for MRHOF

Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu> Sat, 02 June 2012 09:13 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 64A7F21F8A09 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.673
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, 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 YSXc-6SiEGAh for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D711F21F8A04 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF9523CA8F for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:13:27 -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 4qJJihmpTgfW for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:13:24 -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 3B90C23CA86 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:13:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by it.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCF82A280C1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:10:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so2929073ghb.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.173.232 with SMTP id v68mr878465yhl.97.1338628402452; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.146.165.20 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 02:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <943C0516-F78E-43FD-AECD-F66A8B930F21@gmail.com>
References: <943C0516-F78E-43FD-AECD-F66A8B930F21@gmail.com>
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:13:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAErDfUTBQqOkkktedWXty43DH8TQvxWr+JGkQZmPrQ8rsQ+_Fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of@tools.ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] "Node energy" as a metric for MRHOF
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, 02 Jun 2012 09:13:29 -0000

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> I came across a new puzzle while re-reading draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of.
>
> "Node energy" doesn't appear to be listed as an additive metric in RFC 6551.  Reading the description of the node energy metric, which carries remaining battery capacity as a percentage of initial capacity, I have no clue how a node using MRHOF would compute a path cost based on node energy.  Does node energy really fit as one of the metrics that MRHOF can use?

One could certainly add up the node energy for all the links, however,
it is probably better to use the path that maximized the minimum
energy along the path as suggested in RFC 6551. If so, MRHOF would not
be the best OF to use when one uses node energy as the metric.

- om_p