Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Wed, 15 October 2014 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
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 AE5671A702E for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL=2.511, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 hcqg-7yTLiY9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm4-vm2.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm4-vm2.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4691A87A3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1413392294; bh=I70gppnd0buedzejXeqeE8/cZOFDtyq8nja7qWsCLsE=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=hwUzugzU7rcUP3Z78hOp3V090qpzM7+ypDYMQMWImqDeHiZM2KJN2T5aMSLoqnL7uIMNexf4KCwsaIYckwAkUC0DVBPvkwqzi/PR+X5jL7yx0w1J93bLy6iiHGgmSQ60Tsv7ZZNAjxKJiuEPtacO5pUFav5k3QE0NROsMf9II7Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; b=Revg/pGrwfK3lQmPghfT+Kz3JSKUo8yVWEMSrRL1bcQDS+d0WnJAE40oiKJa+sIhOdiM/9LQ/ZzSWf+Dg2wk6jqmDNn5yEyU3fXGOl0oRyIKue/oIfw9t4nxDOS9VfTYfO+vMDbgnzWviJgUHopOS30RFHPh0QHVAxJU1pvhGWo=;
Received: from [216.39.60.171] by nm4.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Oct 2014 16:58:14 -0000
Received: from [98.138.226.244] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Oct 2014 16:58:13 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Oct 2014 16:58:13 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1413392293; bh=I70gppnd0buedzejXeqeE8/cZOFDtyq8nja7qWsCLsE=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type; b=GiYM8RolfmKw7L/0soceDJ8/UQfbvN6OdQnfXXOHyuiElfhQ6kssjioHyzfNk9xRF9Gpz9h6dzpN/Lk1kQZ7fK5gECxjc3OCbGXDibvcInST9B040J7PE7SW4vAgIGkzSxNdxdjBDAoATj6BSw4Ca1vOux9swymI7fISDDET2+0=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 837346.29162.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: JXBabaEVM1k7BrJgehaLJMShJJv3poQZxbWAaLrmVhZs.o3 97qUJa8nKQ4SciZc_Dhjbi1x.b1xQRdbnkFfsth8SD0hYFtAp.lo7p3Y._Kd UrkFWuUC4iRwRLVkkL25O4WbtqZYKdH4Iph77uZp6c_xdY4PqQBY7dgjMtgU YcvW7BhXuzUmIXnbSJG.emWPC.XJETX0Jk1vhN3bv88lvJg0c2iMrioD0QcV YqnuOX0PLGtgjLuXFQ565cCBTjZLxdaps6NdGyAuI4jyDWElstRQefF63gV7 tp4OaKRxo_MoFWJkyF.9R.jEwAoYoJ5ATlpkX6EddXP5nzcyNAKoaZ3jQWSs HKEqZ0tZsxREdIOKEbQxSLOxhIfLweiu7lUUebZOOvnli01b4nDHMouQgJ9d V4JlEpLKkdc5iaAwdi1acS_vJm427fO7VmXcmsupUby7bON_cBFDVbUdH_oC pm0FEEtzdSYOPEGC7BTTuWMSp2YBb9E9lQm34._i2NTlaogdeRg1r5z7h4rV 9QYYxFWAg9tDO9.g9F8.VnooUbHx8rQ9zZSfEiw--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:58:07 -0700
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D063F2D8.2EA57%d.sturek@att.net>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN
References: <aef2e75903e84afe988ff58d04a0fc56@DB4PR01MB0431.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <6B9D200B-58B8-423C-ADEA-A6C61F73748B@cisco.com> <AC402B16-8AD9-4033-A7F3-780725F9BAB8@tzi.org> <CABOxzu0-MLJ9esL55oxj_eQRpzXJrf6XErV+jd6UeZ2vuF0H5w@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842E1C49A@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CABOxzu2d_JNFQ+Nu9mw=pW2TPG7qxFm6ocLFvSXChvA_By3xVw@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842E1C6B0@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842E1C6B0@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3496211891_1001210"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/_Fxz--Ya9hDULkcjveOcsieoOzc
Cc: "IJsbrand Wijnands \(iwijnand\)" <ice@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:58:17 -0000

Hi Pascal,

Let me try to provide a use case.

The network is a Neighborhood Area Network.  The application can be
something like street lights or a smart metering AMI (really any collection
of devices that are networked centrally with a non-trivial number of devices
in the network)

Here are some details:
1)   Around 5000 devices in the network total.  There can be as many as 15
hops from the DODAG to the furthest leaf node in the network.
2)  One border router that supports ROLL RPL.  All devices in the network
are ROLL RPL aware (some as routers, some end devices).  What would be
really nice is if we could have non-RPL aware end devices also in the
network but I think that is another topic :-)
3)  We support all of the mandatory multicast groups (eg all routers) in our
networked devices
4)  From an application point of view, we want to use special
application-defined multicast groups for things like:
       A.    Control a geographic collection of street lights (like all the
ones in an area where there is to be a festival this evening)
       B.    Control a geographically  diverse collection of devices that
are not the entire population (for example, I want a message sent to all of
my pre-pay customers which are mainly focused in some neighborhoods, less in
others)
5)  I don't want to incur the MPL overhead of all multicast traffic flooding
all 5000 devices/forwarded up to 15 hops in my network when I send these
special multicast group messages.

What would be great in the above scenario is if the multicast traffic only
traversed the portions of the network where members of the multicast group
exist (eg, don't forward down portions of the tree where there are no
multicast members).  MPL as a flooding mechanism fails this goal (which is
fine with relatively few devices but not so when talking about 5000
devices/24 hops!

Is the above good enough to start a discussion on how to solve the problem?

Don


From:  "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Reply-To:  Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Date:  Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:38 AM
To:  Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc:  "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com>
Subject:  Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN

Hello Kerry:
 
Or Roll Multicast Operations ( : ROLLMOps? : )
 
Basically, BIER needs a preexisting tree structure and RPL is designed to
build and maintain one. They need a root node and we have one.
On paper it is a perfect match. Now the question is whether there is enough
need for that work, and then we¹ll find a place to make it happen.
 
To start with, would you have a specific use case of multicast in LLNs where
MPL is less applicable than the classical tree-based forwarding?
 
With that, we could connect into the BIER effort.
 
Strong points:
- very limited state in the nodes, could even be used for unicast,
independent on the number of groups and the size of the network
- bit aggregation easy to advertise in existing DAOs, low cost there too
- transparent support for v4 and v6 (since it is an overlay)
 
Weak points:
- extra encapsulation (since it is an overlay)
- new routing and forwarding operation to implement in the nodes (bitwise)
- limited number of nodes per DODAG (roughly 100).
 
Cheers,
 
Pascal
 

From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Lynn
Sent: mercredi 15 octobre 2014 18:25
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
Cc: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
Subject: Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN
 

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

Or form a new group J
 
What about Routing Over Complete Kaos?
 
More seriously, it¹s probably a good idea to goto through the BoF sequence
again to analyze what¹s left to be done.
I can certainly see an analog of what the 6lo is to 6LoWPAN, but for ROLL.
 

For me the first question is whether multicast in the LLN would be RPL-

dependent, or have RPL-like features (e.g. dependence on a DODAG).

That could argue for doing the work in ROLL or a follow on group

(ROLLMAN?)

 

At least some of the 6lo proposals (MS/TP comes to mind) are not mesh

networks, but still constrained from a host and bandwidth perspective.

 

I like the topology-independence of MPL, but I think work still needs to be

done to see how far it is from optimal (in terms of energy and bandwidth

usage) under different operating conditions and parameter settings.

 

-K-

 
> 
> Cheers,
>  
> Pascal
>  
_______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll