Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sun, 06 May 2012 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=466168d84=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 4DC1021F852C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, 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 8mEcPGdYYvoP for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 18:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F85421F84D6 for <Roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 18:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAPLUpU9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABDhXKwFAEBAQQBAQEgSwsMDxEEAQEDAg0WAwIpHwkIGYgOC6deiHKJBQSBL4lQhQiBGASIZI0akEKDBw
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3BE499102; Sat, 5 May 2012 20:33:58 -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 DhpHNFXOdZ9d; Sat, 5 May 2012 20:33:58 -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 3794C1FD0C9; Sat, 5 May 2012 20:33:58 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 20:33:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Message-ID: <1354322643.282916.1336268038026.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <048a01cd2b1d$3b5d7940$b2186bc0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [99.20.249.193]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.15_GA_2995 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.15_GA_2995)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: Roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
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, 06 May 2012 01:34:27 -0000

>Could you enhance the text around the suggested defaults and the guidance to
expand a little on what the problems might be, and encourage specific
experimentation and reports back to the WG?

Sure I will do that.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>du>, "Federico Consoli" <admin@ipv6it.org>
Cc: Roll@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 7:14:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments

Hi,

Can I make a suggestion?

draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl is targeted at publication as an Experimental.

Could you enhance the text around the suggested defaults and the guidance to
expand a little on what the problems might be, and encourage specific
experimentation and reports back to the WG?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mukul
> Goyal
> Sent: 05 May 2012 18:44
> To: Federico Consoli
> Cc: Roll@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
> 
> I have no further comment to make. I think we disgree on this point.
> 
> Thanks
> Mukul
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Federico Consoli" <admin@ipv6it.org>
> To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
> Cc: Roll@ietf.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 12:27:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
> 
> Il 05/05/2012 19.18, Mukul Goyal ha scritto:
> >> [Mukul2]
> >> You described two separate scenarios:
> >> 1) A has 15 neighbors, B has just A as the neighbor.
> >> 2) Both A and B have 15 neighbors including each other.
> >>
> >> In the second scenario, K=1 definitely makes sense because there are many
> candidate paths and one such path to B would probably be discovered even
> though many of B's neighbors would end up suppressing their DIOs. It is
possible
> that the discovered route wont pass through A.
> > [Federico3]
> > I think this is the problem, the fact that the node B does not have full
> > information about the status of his neighborhood. In the second scenario
> > node B will use a path almost certainly worse to reach a neighbor of the
> > node A.
> >
> > [Mukul3]
> > IMHO, there is no problem. There is no need for B to know the route through
> each neighbor. All it needs to know is one path that meets the constraints
> specified by the origin. The need to avoid too many DIO transmissions is
critical
> and K in default configuration option is set to reflect this priority.
> [Federico4]
> Yes but the information about the route through each neighbor is very
> important for the objective function.
> 
> > Thanks
> > Mukul
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > Roll@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> 
> --
> Regards
> Consoli Federico
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll