Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?
Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 14:25 UTC
Return-Path: <richard.kelsey@ember.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 0CA5C21F87A8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, 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 EWSgtTZ69Zbs for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p01c12o141.mxlogic.net (p01c12o141.mxlogic.net [208.65.145.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16ECA21F8739 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO p01c12o141.mxlogic.net) by p01c12o141.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.13.0-3) with ESMTP id 4d95c7f4.55f6f940.62291.00-573.138571.p01c12o141.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <richard.kelsey@ember.com>); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:25:24 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c59d436df0927-b6171dfd27facbabe8ad0d9e4794a41734fdbffb
Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO usmail.ember.com) by p01c12o141.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.13.0-3) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 2d95c7f4.0.62280.00-392.138556.p01c12o141.mxlogic.net (envelope-from <richard.kelsey@ember.com>); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:25:23 -0600 (MDT)
X-MXL-Hash: 4f7c59d32d16ecd7-325046b720c8806ea3ada933ae2535d58204764f
Received: from kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com (192.168.81.75) by usmail.ember.com (192.168.80.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 10:26:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:24:28 -0400
Message-ID: <87ty0z8tib.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1574412879.1807702.1333547692001.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> (message from Mukul Goyal on Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:54:52 -0500)
From: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
References: <1574412879.1807702.1333547692001.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.81.75]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [216.236.254.3]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=u0NvnAFnSA0A:10 a=u-k6GrH3DusA:10 a=saA6nF2ZJa]
X-AnalysisOut: [AA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=MYqPJgym4Kx47q1P90kooQ==:17 a=OQ]
X-AnalysisOut: [_ktunLAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=VO00UbjKn]
X-AnalysisOut: [nxrcXP_UBsA:9 a=HRSxrBFyZtJl9WO05OkA:7 a=AuRza0os8rYA:10 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=JfD0Fch1gWkA:10]
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:25:25 -0000
> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:54:52 -0500 > From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> > > >The G flag is 0 if and only if the DODAG is floating. > > I think that the G flag is 1 if and only if the DODAG is grounded. I agree. G = 0 means floating, G = 1 means grounded. > The temporary DAGs used in P2P-RPL are not grounded, they are > temporary. I think that all transient/temporary DAGs are > floating by their very nature. This I don't follow at all. If a device has a temporary need to send or receive data from many other devices, it makes perfect sense for it to create a a temporary, grounded DODAG. If there is a lot of P2P traffic, it makes perfect sense to have permanent, floating DODAGs for routing that traffic. -Richard Kelsey > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Kelsey" <richard.kelsey@ember.com> > To: roll@ietf.org > Cc: mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org > Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:36:50 AM > Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text? > > > From: roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> > > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:08:50 +0000 > > > > #86: G flag: do we need that text? > > > > Problem (resolition is proposed) > > ------------------------------ > > Disagreement on the meaning of 'G' bit and imposed setting to 0; > > > > Proposed resolution > > --------------------------- > > The origin sets the G flag based on its perception of whether joining > > how the flag's value would affect the rank calculation under the OF > > being used. By default, the G flag is set to zero given the temporary > > nature of the DAG being created. > > I disagree with the proposed resolution. It adds needless > confusion. The G flag is 0 if and only if the DODAG is floating. > There is no point to allowing floating DODAGs with a P2P-RDO > option. I suggest that the G bit be set to 1 and that routers be > explicitly prohibited from creating floating DODAGs with a > P2P-RDO option. > -Richard Kelsey >
- [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text? roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Richard Kelsey
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Richard Kelsey
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Richard Kelsey
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that te… JP Vasseur