IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 13 February 2014 17:33 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 676181A02CF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:33:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 WG061YMCWMNg for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1791A02C5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89CC2003F; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:50:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 9B45A647C9; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:33:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B9B647C8; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:33:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org>
References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org>
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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:33:10 -0500
Message-ID: <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/archive/details/roll/Zr6mOHJngkI7Zn66LSa1z0k7MBc
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:33:16 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > To me it seems a more viable course of action is to treat RPL's storing
    > modes as an interesting experimental protocol and focus on the
    > non-storing mode for deployment.

people whose equipment has power, and are therefore not as limited in the
footprint of their code, prefer storing mode as it reduces the distance of
the some traffic, and maximizes the bandwidth available.

The metering people (AMI) specified storing mode in the applicability
statement.  Traffic distance doesn't matter as it's almost all p2mp.

I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing modes.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email