Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: Data-Option in P2P-DIO

Jakob Buron <> Tue, 29 May 2012 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C6621F87A5 for <>; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.509
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NOmvx9xz8d-I for <>; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CFD21F85CC for <>; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jakob Buron <>
To: "'Reddy, Joseph'" <>, Mukul Goyal <>
Thread-Topic: P2P-RPL: Data-Option in P2P-DIO
Thread-Index: Ac06ukqYlqXbLy4uQ+WsQbdrHuAImwC49CSg
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:24:03 +0000
Message-ID: <6CD8B4189A89EB4FB816FA9827F6F65F0ABCD132@cph-ex1>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: Data-Option in P2P-DIO
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:24:06 -0000

Hi, please see my comments inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Reddy, Joseph
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:08 PM
> To: Mukul Goyal
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Roll] P2P-RPL: Data-Option in P2P-DIO
> Hi Mukul,
> See response below...
> -Regards, Joseph
> -----Original Message-----
> [Joseph]
> Section 9.4
> Bullet 1:
> Under what conditions would a router receive the same DIO and a Data-
> Option with higher sequence number? I assume that only the Originator can
> include a Data-Option ? Same question also arises for section 9.5 ( para
> 1 )
> [Mukul]
> Yes, only the origin can include a data option for delivery to the
> target(s). In theory, the origin might have newer data to convey to the
> target(s) while the route discovery is still going on. Sequence numbers
> accounts for that possibility. Note that Data option did not have a
> sequence number earlier (before the first LC). Then, Pascal raised the
> possibility what if origin changes the data option. How would
> intermediate routers and target know that this is the newer data? Hence,
> we introduced the sequence number.
> [Joseph]
> I don’t think the Origin should able to this. In fact, the Origin must
> not make any changes to the contents of the DIO and retransmit it without
> updating the version number. If the Origin wants to send data, it should
> simply wait until the p2p route is setup and then use it.
> The whole idea of sending UDP Data messages in the ICMP message payload
> itself doesn’t seem quite right. It is also not simple from an
> implementation perspective to make this kind of cross layer interactions.
I understand the concern about the Data Option and cross-layer interactions. I also believe that it is a sensible and necessary design choice for home automation networks. Home automation frequently requires low-latency messages to be delivered to targets for which the originator has no route. An example is a remote light switch that needs to control a relocated lamp. The fastest way to do that in a reactive routing scheme is to piggyback the data on the routing packets. The other option would be to use simple flooding, with no trickle control, which would involve generating a huge number of packets. Piggybacking data on routing packets helps avoid generating extra packets.

Home automation networks do not need to update the Data Option while a discovery is in progress. I am okay with removing the sequence numbers if they add too much complexity.

Best regards,
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list