Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments

I have no further comment to make. I think we disgree on this point.

Thanks
Mukul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Federico Consoli" <admin@ipv6it.org>
To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
Cc: Roll@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 12:27:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments

Il 05/05/2012 19.18, Mukul Goyal ha scritto:
>> [Mukul2]
>> You described two separate scenarios:
>> 1) A has 15 neighbors, B has just A as the neighbor.
>> 2) Both A and B have 15 neighbors including each other.
>>
>> In the second scenario, K=1 definitely makes sense because there are many candidate paths and one such path to B would probably be discovered even though many of B's neighbors would end up suppressing their DIOs. It is possible that the discovered route wont pass through A.
> [Federico3]
> I think this is the problem, the fact that the node B does not have full
> information about the status of his neighborhood. In the second scenario
> node B will use a path almost certainly worse to reach a neighbor of the
> node A.
>
> [Mukul3]
> IMHO, there is no problem. There is no need for B to know the route through each neighbor. All it needs to know is one path that meets the constraints specified by the origin. The need to avoid too many DIO transmissions is critical and K in default configuration option is set to reflect this priority.
[Federico4]
Yes but the information about the route through each neighbor is very 
important for the objective function.

> Thanks
> Mukul
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

-- 
Regards
Consoli Federico