Re: [Roll] [roll] #95: Why need stop flag? Is the receipt of DRO not sufficient to indicate completion of route discovery?

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sun, 08 April 2012 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=4385599de=mukul@uwm.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 31BA121F853B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 aBD2Hr1EMRyD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (smtp.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C0021F8537 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EACYEgk9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABEhWa2UgUBAQEgSwsbGgINEgcCKTAGE4gOC6caiG2JCYEvjhOBGASIWo0SgRGPJYMF
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5ACE6A90; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:38:27 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zONQC+B8te17; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:38:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B665FE6A72; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:38:26 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:38:26 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <1278156449.1852161.1333921106641.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D022166C5@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #95: Why need stop flag? Is the receipt of DRO not sufficient to indicate completion of route discovery?
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:38:28 -0000

Hi Cedric

Please see the response inline.

Thanks
Mukul


#95: Why need stop flag? Is the receipt of DRO not sufficient to indicate completion of route discovery?

 Resolution: No because multiple DROs would be generated if multiple source  routes are being discovered.

 Discussion:

 p15 :  Stop (S): This flag, when set to one by a target, indicates that  the P2P-RPL route discovery is over.

 [Cedric]
 Is this bit really usefull ? My guess is that it will be always set to 1.
 If you hear a DRO, this indeed means that the RDO has reached the target,  so you could just stop processing RDO when you hear a DRO.
 Do we really need a flag to stop RDO processing or the hearing of a DRO  type message could do the job ?

 [Mukul]
 A P2P-RPL invocation might involve discovery of multiple source routes. In  that case, receipt of a DRO does not mean route discovery is over. Only  when the target sets the stop flag in the DRO, a node could be sure that  the route discovery is over.

[Cedric2]
OK fo multiple discovery.
But if I want to discover a route to a multicast group of target. I set a multicast adress in the target field of the RDO. Then, do I received as many DRO message as the number of target reached ? In that case, would the first DRO with a "S" flag stop the RDO propagation to reach all the target included in the multicast group ?

[Mukul2]
A target cannot set the S flag to one in the DRO if the target address in the P2P-RDO specified a multicast address. See the following text at the end of page 21 in P2P-RPL-9:

"The target MAY set the stop flag inside the DRO message to one if



Goyal, et al.           Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 21]
 
Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-09             March 2012


   o  this router is the only target specified in the corresponding DIO,
      i.e., the corresponding DIO specified a unicast address of the
      router as the Target inside the P2P-RDO with no additional targets
      specified via RPL Target Options; and

" 

-- 
-----------------------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…                  |      Owner:  mukul@…
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |  Milestone:
Component:  p2p-rpl                |    Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |   Keywords:
-----------------------------------+---------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/95>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

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