Re: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions

JP Vasseur <> Fri, 25 May 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C7E21F8758 for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.329
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0HqnmaEvVNAG for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4EED21F8755 for <>; Fri, 25 May 2012 09:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4848; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337964227; x=1339173827; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LoxIOM3R9oRxfUrJVz3M5j2N+gnRLTJSjOn+oCL5Y/s=; b=Q/oggYneSeAdfJk5P3Lmm+uf1eEHC7hsBici0eMZP7JUjCQbQkPdRBk2 enKy3rxReWI3v7Q1sUlNTifPAL39Frw4Kd2kObNpjHHIgDQ9LnimSlgI3 QPBGf5pBKXsApPnfG+fQFR2y6wCGkBGvQJgcYNKkV51H+0cTqyLvxsv4Z c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,657,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="13032143"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 25 May 2012 16:43:45 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4PGhiV4005968; Fri, 25 May 2012 16:43:45 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 26 May 2012 00:43:44 +0800
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 26 May 2012 00:43:42 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: JP Vasseur <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 18:43:39 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Pascal Thubert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2012 16:43:42.0325 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B2ECA50:01CD3A95]
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:43:55 -0000

I would agree, the OF solves the tough tension between flexibility and under-specifcation.

On May 25, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

> Hi Michael:
> I think RPL does not want to take party there. The OF is a piece of logic to tie metrics and policies together. 
> As such, there could be multiple metrics as long as there is good logic to tie them in. for instance one would look at optimizing metric A within contraints as expressed by metric B and the OF model will allow that.
> OTOH, it a flows requires a certain optimization (say per one metric) and another requires something different, then certainly you want two instances.
> So ... it depends!
> Pascal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: vendredi 25 mai 2012 16:54
> To:
> Subject: [Roll] knowing which multiple metrics matter: MRHOF related questions
> Ralph asked some questions a few days ago.
> His originally DISCUSS is at:
> This was my reply.    I am particularly interested in replies from
> Pascal, Anders and Mukul about my assertion about how we would never pick RPL instances by metrics; that they would in fact be seperate RPL Instance numbers and DODAG values, and that these things would provisioned by the network installer.
> ====
> I'm going to reply to your comments in a different order than you asked them, because I think question #3 is most important, and the rest fall out of it.
>>>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Droms <> writes:
>    Ralph> 3. Based on (1) and (2), would configuration and selection
>    Ralph> issues be ameliorated if the five candidate selected metrics
>    Ralph> were each asssigned a separate objective function?  Use of a
>    Ralph> separate OF code point for each of the five possible selected
>    Ralph> metrics would allow multiple RPL instances.
> I think that it's important to understand that ROLL has a whole palette of things that need to be provisioned by the "network operator".
> In contrast to the situation of ISPs and customers, where the ISP is the network operator, ROLL networks are more like highly orchestrated
> Enterprises: "all your host belong to us"
> so, when we write something like:
>    "The metric chosen by the network operator to use for path
>    selection."
> in section 2, we really mean:
>    "The metric chosen by the network operator and provisioned into
>    the node when the firmware was flashed to use for path selection."
> Ralph> 1.  Why is one objective function defined for several potential 
> Ralph> metrics?  The details of MRHOF seem to preclude the establishment 
> Ralph> of several RPL instances in an LLN, each of which uses MRHOF with 
> Ralph> a different selected metric.
> If one had many different RPL Instances, then we would have different
> RPL Instance numbers in the RPL header.   There can be many different
> DODAG ("destinations") created within that instance.  The instances share a common set of (provisioned) parameters.
> (To put it into DHCP terms: if we have multiple DHCP servers on a link,  then one would expect them to all offer IP addresses in the same subnet.
> If one wanted to have addresses in different subnets, and let the host  pick between them, then, one would need different layer-2s: different  VLANs or ESSIDs, or... )
> If you feel that RPL is rather schizo about provisioning vs configuration, then I agree.  It's not always clear to me why some things are advertised while others are provisioned.
> In BGPv4, we calculate metrics by adding AS entries in the path.
> (It's always additive), and we add at least one AS entry to the path.
> One can AS-stuff and add more, but proper operation of BGP does not depend upon the exact algorithm used.
> Finally, my impression is that how the various metrics are used (singly, or in some combination) to calculate Rank Increase is a question of further research, experimentation, and trade secret.  
> So long as the Rank increases, and a node does not flap between parents, the exact details do not matter.  Each node can do it's parent selection based upon the available metrics on it's own.  It advertises the metrics it has.
> I hope the authors will correct me if I'm completely off here.
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list