Re: [Roll] Open topics for discussion in ROLL

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Thu, 17 April 2014 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D623E1A014E for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.772
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OHvwgCdChZJF for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E051A015A for <>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=46568; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397743038; x=1398952638; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=KqaXkKELW1w3hNyoYTyxqShwgm5bKwUr67IuVXLLRoM=; b=WrQz0cuezkBe0bqbO/zOqtNhdnDPUfzJDRSfGmyEs+9nu1Ui99Gm92qt vNZLIVPrrSJp4pKCb1dknyo6cF1o4RUjnVokyAyerhhRtXTMtfq4ghHfx BpQRYHqOVez+a/Rv3ae5I0JJeguHj+B9QszMCz/9WbrTKzknmHqGDZylx w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,879,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="318448717"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2014 13:57:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3HDvH5I020416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:57:17 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:57:17 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Open topics for discussion in ROLL
Thread-Index: AQHPWa207HOZAGej1kWom2RFPhS1U5sVc49w
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:57:17 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:57:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84260578Dxmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Open topics for discussion in ROLL
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:57:26 -0000

Thanks a bunch for this great summary Ines! I for one realize that I missed a train or two.

I find that the discussion on item5 (the mixed mode) is a promising one and worth continuing.
Same goes for the item 7, the selective DIS, which roots in experimental facts and yields energy savings.
Let me come back to the list with some review asap.



From: Roll [] On Behalf Of Ines Robles
Sent: mercredi 16 avril 2014 21:54
To: roll
Cc: Michael Richardson
Subject: [Roll] Open topics for discussion in ROLL


We would like to let you know a summary about the open topics for discussion in the WG:

1.  draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration.<> - last thread-

a.     []

“... Typical open topics are:
1) Effect of inconsistent parameter set among nodes
  (transitional state / update failure)
2) Add/Remove of new MPL domain
3) Format to encode timers  (-> DHC wg)...”

b.  DHC wg opinion: []

c.            Additional thread: []

2.            draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy <> - last thread -


         “...the following points have been changed:

- terminology and description text have been improved.

- The concept of a MPL4 router is introduced which automatically finds all interfaces belonging to the zone in which MPL scope 4 messages are distributed…”

3.            draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template<> - last thread -


“...Some specific todo:
    1) applicability documents need to reference roll-security-threats,
       (some still reference security-framework document)

    2) some (common) text in the applicability document needs to explain how
       the applicability document relates to other documents....”

4. draft-doi-roll-mpl-nan-requirements<> - thread:


“...The issue I have is how to deploy a mesh network over even larger network, maybe up to 10,000 nodes, with very low application traffic. At the same time, we need communication channels for relatively-low latency (few seconds) broadcast for commanding and enough reliable broadcast file transfer. The draft draft-doi-roll-mpl-nan-requirements-00 introduces the requirement….”

5. draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology<>

[first thread:]

“ there interest in pursuing this line of investigation at this time? We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured out a number of other things.   Please read this document, and consider whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one or a      number of approaches. Do we have a good enough problem statement?...”

[ additional thread: ]

“...I also wonder the method for mixing storing and non-storing modes that we described in the draft is feasible or not. We suggested a new MOP that requires a few minor changes from existing storing mode and non-storing mode...”

Additional Topics

6. Interest in opportunistic routing?

8.            []

         “...If there is interest, we can come up with a simplified version of the design presented in the paper, and propose a way to integrate it in RPL through only a few minor additions. To be more specific, the simplified version would use the existing RPL routing tables rather than Bloom filters, and would be MAC-layer agnostic (the only assumption being that the MAC layer supports anycast)....”

7. draft on selective DIS?


         “ is an expired draft that I intend to revive <> It basically consists in enriching the DIS a little bit, by allowing it to be more selective.  One benefit is that it saves a lot of energy in a dense environment when a new node joins an established network. …”

8. Interest in asymmetrical links support?


“...The work was triggered by a discussion with Don Sturek, but failed to attract WG attention at the time. I can revive it if interests grows? ...”

9. Multiple PIO payloads in a single DIO


“...As far as I can see, there is nothing in RFC6550 to forbid multiple PIO options in a DIO, and therefore in a single DODAG.
Other than renumbering, it seems that most use cases where there could be multiple prefixes present in an LLN will use multiple DODAGs.
If renumbering is the only use for mutiple PIO options, then it seems that supporting at most 2 or 3 prefixes per DODAG seems reasonable….”

10. Open tickets: []

We would appreciate your comments about it.

Happy Easter! :-)

Thanks and Regards,

Michael & Ines.