Archive

>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