Re: [Roll] Question on MPL: parameter update on runnning MPL forwarders

[Yusuke DOI <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

Thanks! I think my idea can be applied only for the trickle timer for control messages.
I agree synchronous change will be difficult without changing message format. It may be done out-of-band (such as DHCP, SNMP, ...) if asynchronous per-node update is allowed.

Regards,

Yusuke

(2013-10-04 21:02), peter van der Stok wrote:
> Hi Yusuke,
>
> For the moment the parameters are general for al interfaces, seeds and messages.
> In the case of changing per message, the parameter sets need to be attached to each message entry. (for me that is a large change)
> Second for synchronous change, parameters need to be transported in message from seed. (Another large change to the message format).
>
> Please be aware that there are as many trickle timers as there are messages outstanding, so what is the start of the interval?
>
> Anything I missed here?
>
> peter
>
>
> Yusuke DOI schreef op 2013-10-04 13:04:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I have not recognized it needs LARGE change. My first idea was to
>> replace the parameters at the very beginning of an interval (step 2 of
>> RFC6206 section 4.2) for each trickle timer. Because it's difficult to
>> synchronize the update, I think unbalanced retransmission may occur in
>> transient period. I assume it's acceptable (safe enough).
>>
>> Could you tell me about your concerns that requires LARGE spec update?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yusuke
>>
>>
>> (2013-10-04 17:29), peter van der Stok wrote:
>> Hi Yusuke.
>>
>> I think you may "safely" change Imin, ,k, Imax and repeat per new message for all involved forwarders, while leaving all earlier messages unaffected. BUT this needs LARGE changes to the current spec.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>> Yusuke DOI schreef op 2013-10-04 10:07:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a simple question: is it possible to update MPL parameters of
>> running forwarder instances?
>>
>> To maintain the system in 'good state', I expect some sort of
>> parameter tuning on MPL. Especially for the systems dynamically grows,
>> static configuration of MPL parameters will be difficult. For example,
>> DHCPv6 reconfigure request can be used to update MPL forwarder
>> parameter. However, I'm not sure it's 'safe' to update parameters (K,
>> Imin, Imax) of running MPL forwarder instances.
>>
>> I think it's safe if there are no transmission / no valid seed set. Is
>> it possible to update a running MPL forwarder parameter without
>> breaking current state?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Yusuke
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll