[Roll] interest in mixed network topology

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 February 2014 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDC81A070F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.029
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no
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 KUBxmJRYTnJp for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE1A1A0707 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4267920036; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:55:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 072CC647C9; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:38:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E647663AB2; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:38:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:38:00 -0500
Message-ID: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: roll@ietf.org, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Subject: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:38:06 -0000

draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology, which expires on Friday from:
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology/

describes a way to do mixed storing/non-storing topologies.   My first
question is to the authors:
  1) do you continue to pursue this work?  What is your intent for this
     document?
  2) will you update with any new results?

To the WG:
  3) is there interest in persuing this line of investigation at this time?
     We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured out
     a number of other things.   Please read this document, and consider
     whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one or a
     number of approaches.
     Do we have a good enough problem statement?

If we recharter in Toronto, I would expect that solving this problem will among the most
important reasons to re-charter.

(again, please recall that absence of comments implies disinterest. +1 are welcome)


Abstract

   The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non-
   storing modes to operate in the same network.  We describe how such a
   mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of
   physical links available in the network.  The partitioning affects
   both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic.
   This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL
   specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join
   the RPL network as leaf nodes only.  We propose a solution that
   modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret
   source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a
   non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/