Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Tue, 11 February 2014 23:06 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca>
References: <30140.1392147480@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:06:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_UfYPZG2G1w2BDV9RYaiH+25v2559T+dW9-zcUPg+HFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c6398c2bbca04f22981b6"
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, "draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>

The draft problem is interesting but the solution approach needs more
investigation.

AB

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014, Michael Richardson wrote:

>
> draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology, which expires on Friday from:
>    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology/
>
> describes a way to do mixed storing/non-storing topologies.   My first
> question is to the authors:
>   1) do you continue to pursue this work?  What is your intent for this
>      document?
>   2) will you update with any new results?
>
> To the WG:
>   3) is there interest in persuing this line of investigation at this time?
>      We had previously put investigation of this on hold until we figured
> out
>      a number of other things.   Please read this document, and consider
>      whether this document would help advance this, or if we need one or a
>      number of approaches.



>      Do we have a good enough problem statement?


Sorry I am not sure what is the statement?


>
> If we recharter in Toronto, I would expect that solving this problem will
> among the most
> important reasons to re-charter.
>
> (again, please recall that absence of comments implies disinterest. +1 are
> welcome)
>
>
> Abstract
>
>    The RPL specification allows nodes running with storing or non-
>    storing modes to operate in the same network.  We describe how such a
>    mix can result in network partitioning even when there are plenty of
>    physical links available in the network.  The partitioning affects
>    both upwards (nodes to root) and downwards (root to leaf) traffic.
>    This routing pathology stems from a recommendation made in the RPL
>    specification forcing nodes with different modes of operation to join
>    the RPL network as leaf nodes only.  We propose a solution that
>    modifies RPL by mandating that all the nodes parse and interpret
>    source routing headers and storing mode nodes to sometimes act like a
>    non-storing mode root by attaching source routing headers.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca <javascript:;>>, Sandelman
> Software Works
> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>
>

[Roll] interest in mixed network topology Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Abdussalam Baryun
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Carsten Bormann
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Abdussalam Baryun
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Michael Richardson
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Carsten Bormann
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Gillmore, Matthew
[Roll] interest in mixed network topology Abdussalam Baryun
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology 정종수
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology 정종수
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Mani, Mehdi
Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology Carsten Bormann