Re: [Roll] NSA PS-set metric/constraint

[Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>]

Fantastic,

Thanks, I'll update the draft then.

Best,
Aris

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:37 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Aris,
>
> Thanks for pinging me, this had disappeared under the pile.
>
> > If I understand this correctly, a node reporting it's own parent set in
> the NSA will set P=1 basically to let the receiving nodes know that they
> should not expect to find inside all the metric along the whole path, but
> only a part of it, and in our case from just the sending node.
> > Am I getting this right?
>
> Exactly, this is what I had in mind. The recording along the path is
> partial (P), and it turns out to be exactly the one from the potential
> parent, which is all we need.
> So it's all totally inline with RFC6551: we don't need to create an
> exception to RFC6551.
> Best regards
>
> Dominique
>
> De : Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>
> Date : Friday 6 March 2020 16:58
> À : Dominique Barthel <[e-mail]>
> Cc : "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <[e-mail]>fr>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: [Roll] NSA PS-set metric/constraint
>
> Hello Dominique,
>
> sorry to bother you in a probably very busy period.
> To finalise our draft before the cutoff, we're waiting for a brief answer
> from you on this previous question:
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:51 AM Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> [DP] Alternate proposal:
>>> Could the PS be part of an NSA Metric? After all, it is used to help
>>> select which parent(s) are best suited for upward routing, not to prune
>>> downlink propagation of the DIO along a path that exceed some metric
>>> value. C=0, R=1, P=1 comes to mind for this metric.
>>>
>>
>> [ARIS]
>>
> So I read a bit more about this. So C=0 means "use as a routing metric",
>> OK.
>> R=1 means "use as a recorded metric", i.e. not aggregated, because
>> aggregated makes no sense, OK.
>> Now, P=1 means that one or more of the nodes on the path did not record
>> the metric. So, it's less a "command" and more a report of previous
>> behaviour.
>>
>> My question is: it seems impossible that *all* the parent sets can be
>> recorded along the path due to size, so each node *replaces* the received
>> parent set with it's own.
>>
>> We can specify this with text of course, but I have not seen another
>> existing metric that behaves like this.
>> On the other hand, the NSA metric object is not used a lot, and if it
>> makes sense for any metric to be replaced rather then appended to a list of
>> metrics, that metric would be NSA.
>>
>> I am not sure about that P=1 part though and how it relates to replacing
>> the existing metrics.
>> If I understand this correctly, a node reporting it's own parent set in
>> the NSA will set P=1 basically to let the receiving nodes know that they
>> should not expect to find inside all the metric along the whole path, but
>> only a part of it, and in our case from just the sending node.
>>
>> Am I getting this right?
>>
>
> Best,
> Aris
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>