Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Sat, 11 June 2016 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
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 83C0512D648 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05NdMR0erFiw for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFFD112D7D5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e4so118877770vkb.1 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QH9lLRD0PD/QXSI5ZVcCHdqAG2hnMT1drew6XNbirzE=; b=aCyHyXgIqaktnqqqgQr4nnShrWqOYVI5Qh+CkBowte9q4U+Qnw+58liMILIdrgb0JH gMbdloXLnfHvvQBUFQQ0X3GwlT/bViB5pB8fTSKwdxJJgR2eLMO6WujH4soOrbKwMs1l fHiH0/am0DwmdduGWEYS08Pqcl2DRY40M6fyi61vfo4YrFpc40PZhFCMfY7w0vvfrnSn BXVDzg6/xU3jnfTcyoxogg6PAtch9VbW6yrmN5AwcCjPV9ZGLMlkFDusjhGrz2c0gC8F 6bgPxto8BMyXk6+UvhqdKu/pqd7TxXVYGDSAnrE2faYsMb9Vm3YRXt+CNMrGVl+3z3eu AXRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QH9lLRD0PD/QXSI5ZVcCHdqAG2hnMT1drew6XNbirzE=; b=GoM0GCLghaygr7FNVqxKJ1U9dVhkJDvruay3G0VBIn0QGh+w4HvrmbaMjD8C9uVGVz p2P4f4KmvWhAbjx1qk1QQtOaTHy3bXEHB+QXK4CDsd5mU6KU9d/zRt4qdIikrpalRGXM JyiXvBPxkS1H0Sn6nXuGM+xo91eODjqyOFn2FRL/VkfsQ2BjFbu9qNr4c+YrnOTLRmor 5wPk68xccgZEJ+6xtm+/iYjyXqv1yHfaYhD4u/LJ3n/ZyelT/hyNHPNHxfuNWXQRDWXj pZveUsztVPJ2QiZ/5O5IUE9tmJTzAs9k7j08Ay24NHsdKcjQuMdU+AbZCE/IbS7SDZCv E1bA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIZO4RwnC83q+usRLFgGa9GCaJGkBRy52V4c/67b6B47kWnjcCrm5TanPTfXauEV/nQFmeI4hyMvXvPoA==
X-Received: by 10.31.234.199 with SMTP id i190mr1842146vkh.104.1465608278747; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.36.163 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <517a2d666e78421cbe7d5c24b2efef3f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <09c3e3fc17b5de9b7366d226c034da28@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUePiV+_Nd+f-H-x_zNoTgkS0Cqe1rq7qD7ie_H3MyOorw@mail.gmail.com> <bc96b8913fff031fc1f41eedfdb6bee3@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUe=t7MwkVAUd33+tz_M7J6sqmHKahCQsiBm_e86eHb6cA@mail.gmail.com> <1747ba1478659868c3b715ff8b807c6c@xs4all.nl> <CAP+sJUep6u43OtAtwSw8stPVCT-r2Mfssp2=Va8sXvtL7f8vQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+sJUcnxBbpNFpRxLWfp=WDmL2S=MeS1bF0jvgqTjPtwYgr4w@mail.gmail.com> <517a2d666e78421cbe7d5c24b2efef3f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:24:38 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUe3Q2acuu-EUJEFTDk+MAYR9_DYDpCc9iL7_aRgccz6mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c095036d5b0e20534f684a2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/RwL_9bO4a0cEwkSOaligadB8j-I>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:24:43 -0000

Ok, thank you Pascal.

Ines

2016-06-03 17:23 GMT+03:00 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>;:

> Hello Ines:
>
>
>
> Interworking between instances would be like redistributing a protocol
> within another. This yields loops and requires prioritization like admin
> distance in Cisoc routers. So far, we do not support that. Related: the
> draft on asym links added a capability for an upward instance (optimizing
> link metrics towards the root) to be coupled with a downwards instance, in
> case we have links with widely unbalanced metrics in both directions.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ines Robles
> *Sent:* mardi 24 mai 2016 12:43
> *To:* consultancy@vanderstok.org
> *Cc:* Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>;
> *Subject:* Re: [Roll] RPLinfo review
>
>
>
> btw, I just found a proposed approach for interaction between RPL Instances
>
>
>
> Barcelo, Marc, Alejandro Correa, Jose Lopez Vicario, and Antoni Morell.
> "Cooperative interaction among multiple RPL instances in wireless sensor
> networks." *Computer Communications* (2015).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Ines.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:26 GMT+03:00 Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>;:
>
> Ah, got it, thank you very much.
>
>
>
> Ines
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:22 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:
>
> Hi,
>
> that means writing "one RPL instance" in figure 3 in stead of "RPL
> instance" to remove that ambiguity.
> Writing in the use case section a phrase as the one below will be more
> than sufficient for me.
>
> peter
>
> Ines  Robles schreef op 2016-05-24 12:16:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> We are just considering here one RPLInstance.
>
> Working with different RPLInstances, involves deeply analysis, which
> we could do in the future. But, actually I dont know if it is
> possible/useful to send a message from one RPL Instance to another one
> , since for example a RPL node may belong to multiple RPL Instances,
> and it may act as a router in some and as a leaf in others[1], for
> this reason it does not make sense to me sending packet from one
> RPLInstance to other RPLInstance. Besides the control messages has one
> field for RPLInstanceID, it does not have RPLInstanceID origen or
> RPLInstanceID dst.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ines
>
> [1] RFC6550. Section 5. RFC 6550 describes only how a single instance
> behaves
>
> 2016-05-24 12:17 GMT+03:00 peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>;:
>
> I also did not see a mapping of flow from one RPL instance to
> another instance.
>
> I do not understand this. Could you please clarify?
>
>
>  A node belonging to one RPL instance sends a message to a node
> belonging to another RPL instance.
> This seems possible in Figure 3, with 3 RPL instances?
>
> If possible, it means an additional use case.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>