Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 13 February 2014 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 F135B1A04E8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:36:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 osSYgdO8XyDb for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E691A045B for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DKaBbE005591; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.101] (p548904E0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.4.224]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DCDCFEF; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:10 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:36:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B553DE17-9AED-45D1-ABA6-7842F6F8CD8F@tzi.org>
References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca> <61C053F3-F4FE-41FC-804A-184184660F2F@tzi.org> <19014.1392312790@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/_R88KY3rakraxzMiZyvZzxWEh0s
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 20:36:21 -0000

Well,

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

It’s easy to “leave the door open” in an applicability statement.
(BTW, is that document alive?  I haven’t been paying attention.)

I would be more interested in hearing about people who actually build things that way.

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

No, I find the problem intriguing.  It just seems to me that storing mode isn’t actually being used outside research.
If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more useful proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work.

Grüße, Carsten