Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences

Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu> Fri, 18 May 2012 23:38 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 8067B21F85DF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.155
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, 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 yzOLDSuWofgb for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD2521F85D6 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE74F23CA8E for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 18:37:59 -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 I-gsgh2UZiQ2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 18:37:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from it.cs.uh.edu (it.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.6]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD3823CA84 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 18:37:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by it.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34FA2A280C3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 19:09:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so3970614ggn.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.114.197 with SMTP id c45mr5469063yhh.114.1337384275771; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.147.116.9 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2AF45E51-6C3B-48D9-908F-117ECF0CABAA@imag.fr>
References: <258D7E2F-F0C7-49EA-B831-81070C86EDB3@thomasclausen.org> <2257A578-B2DF-4145-8393-9BB5D7E1CFBD@cisco.com> <2225986E-992E-43C7-B0CA-9CDA91CE1F3A@thomasclausen.org> <B1B81482-0F7E-4BCE-BBA7-B21949E3C16C@cisco.com> <0958556A-7D9A-4E8B-8091-1D6EC0B813B4@thomasclausen.org> <ACBA7834-F4A1-4D9C-80D6-E76C793A6770@cisco.com> <91E71E23-8797-4C70-A1F8-1CE64BD4ED39@thomasclausen.org> <1D6FEB49-CB62-4FFA-9E34-3FEF82DB644C@cisco.com> <BE51553F-67BE-4652-A8E8-9654BF953A96@thomasclausen.org> <78FB3B50-3150-4729-A089-D9EAF0B02BB6@cs.stanford.edu> <2AF45E51-6C3B-48D9-908F-117ECF0CABAA@imag.fr>
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:37:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAErDfUT4QGfLT66eLyf5UBzjyp6RZKodDQzhm=RpsWHsH6O5zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Heusse <Martin.Heusse@imag.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Way forward for draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences
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: Fri, 18 May 2012 23:38:00 -0000

Martin,

Is your concern that 6550 and
draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-03 do not say the Trickle
interval should be a-b ms and hence it is easy to use a bad value and
bring the whole network down or make it run inefficiently?

- om_p

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Martin Heusse <Martin.Heusse@imag.fr> wrote:
> Phil,
> what you are writing bellow may be true (although...) but it does not address comment 12, that we have no idea when DAOs should be sent and how DAOs should be handled (how long should the route be kept?).
>
> Along those lines, 2 comments:
> 1) I notice that draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami, for instance, ignores DAOs except for specifying that DAOs SHOULD be sent -- so they might not be sent--, even though "Two-way communication is a requirement"(?). At the same time, this draft goes as far as suggesting what parameters to use for trickle (big deal) or for MaxRankIncrease (big deal: will things break if someone uses 512 instead of 1024?).
> (same comment applies to draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-03.)
> 2) <sarcasm> What is the point of making DAOs compact in storing mode (learning the route recursively) while the packets that actually contain data have to carry the whole path anyway? </sarcasm>
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
>
>
> Philip Levis wrote:
>
>> For 12, "implementations may exhibit a bad performance if not carefully implemented."  I think it is safe to say this is true for almost ANY protocol. A specification is not intended to be a complete statement of efficient implementation, otherwise you give little latitude to future improvements and good engineering.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll