IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [roll] #92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sun, 08 April 2012 16:21 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 913DB21F8557 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.513, 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 SP7SXPKCsMm5 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (smtp.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C893321F8523 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAFG6gU9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABChXO2TwEBAQQBAQEgSwsMDxEEAQEDAg0WAwIpHwkIBhOIDgusCYh5gSGBL44TgRgEiFqNEoERjyWDBYE2Fw
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E01C1FD0D6; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:11:14 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9O9Bpoj2YLP3; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:11:14 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2571FD0D5; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:11:14 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:11:13 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <287665186.1851186.1333901473996.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D0221638D@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] #92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm
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 16:21:29 -0000

Hi JP, Richard

Please mark this ticket as closed.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "C Chauvenet" <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
To: roll@ietf.org, mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:33:14 AM
Subject: RE: [Roll] [roll] #92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm

See inline.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de roll issue tracker
Envoyé : jeudi 5 avril 2012 13:00
À : mukul@UWM.EDU; jpv@cisco.com
Cc : roll@ietf.org
Objet : [Roll] [roll] #92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm

#92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm

 Discussion:

 [Cedric]
 Another point that has been discussed today during the ROLL meeting, is  that some people may find other mechanisms than trickle more efficient to  flood the RDO.
 Could we let the door opened to other flooding optimization mechanism, or  explicitly say that the trickle mechanism MUST be used ?

 [Mukul]
 I think inherent dependence on the trickle mechanism is apparent because  of the fact that the route discovery takes place by forming a temporary  DAG. DAG creation (or DIO generation) depends on trickle algorithm. So,  P2P-RPL also depends on trickle algorithm. P2P-RPL being an extension of  core RPL, I dont think there is a way to separate P2P-RPL from trickle  algorithm.

[Cedric2]
Fine. If this is needed for RPL compliancy, then I agree.

-- 
-----------------------------------+---------------------
 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/92>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email