Re: [Roll] [roll] #91: Is it possible for an origin to get an error message in case the P2P-RPL route discovery fails.

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Thu, 05 April 2012 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=435672ecd=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 E03BA21F8577 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.811
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.788, 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 R306Oykljdr7 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (smtp.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1558E21F858D for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAJ+ifU9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABDhXy2DwUBAQEgSwsbGgINEgcCKTAGExmHdQusX4ltgSGBL44TgRgEiFmNEoERjyODBYE2Fw
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903EC2B3EF6; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 08:52:53 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zXsi6fN4BOgs; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 08:52:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta04.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2172B3F0B; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 08:52:53 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:52:53 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <1248145519.1824721.1333633973075.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D02216366@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] #91: Is it possible for an origin to get an error message in case the P2P-RPL route discovery fails.
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:52:55 -0000

#91: Is it possible for an origin to get an error message in case the P2P-RPL route discovery fails.

 Discussion:
 [Cedric]
 On big question that rise my mind is, what happened if the route discovery  fail ?
 Some protocols sends out an error message when the route discovery fails  or get stuck.
 Do authors think that it could be relevant to add a "discovery-error"
 message as defined in other route discovery protocols ?

 [Mukul]
 I dont think it is possible to detect the failure of a P2P-RPL route  discovery. No node knows if a P2P-RPL route discovery has failed.

 P2P-RPL forms a temporary DAG and the route discovery (well, at least the  first half) succeeds when a target joins the DAG. Only the target knows  whether it joined the DAG or not. So, no node knows if the (first half of
 the) route discovery failed.

 Second half involves the target sending DRO to the origin. If the DRO does  not reach the origin, (the second half of) the route discovery fails. The  target can ensure (or at least increase the probability of) success by  asking for DRO-ACK and retransmitting the DRO if the DRO-ACK is not  received within certain time duration. DRO message travels by multicast,  so an intermediate router, that forwards a DRO further, has no idea  whether the next hop on the route received the DRO or not. Again, no node  knows if the (second half of the) there is no one to generate the  discovery-error message.

 I think an origin might infer the route discovery to have failed, if the  DAG's life time has expired but no DRO is received. But I am not sure we  should mandate this to be the way failure is inferred. We have just 4  values for the DAG life time. So, I think we should leave it to origin how  much to wait for a DRO before admitting failure.

[Cedric2]

I was thinking about an error message if the delivery of a message fails when using a route established by the P2P-RPL mechanism.
When a node included in the discovered route cannot be reached, then an error message could initiate a new route discovery using the P2P-RPL mechanism.

[Mukul2]
P2P-RPL routes are used in exactly the same manner as core RPL routes, that is you use an RPL Source Routing Header (RFC6554) or an RPL Option (RFC6553) to send a packet to its destination. These RFCs specify what ICMP error messages could be generated if the route is broken.

-- 
-----------------------------------+---------------------
 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/91>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

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