Re: [Roll] [roll] #95: Why need stop flag? Is the receipt of DRO not sufficient to indicate completion of route discovery?

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Wed, 11 April 2012 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=441eb7f02=mukul@uwm.edu>
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 6C30611E8086 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.183
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 lJjIl8y6oTq4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA2211E8089 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 03:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAHBbhU9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABFhWa2cgUBAQEgSwsbGgINEgcCKTAGE4gOC6dMihWJCYEvjniBGASIWo0SgRGPJYMF
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99BC1FD0BC; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:23:46 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y62cAzV3VUa5; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:23:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta03.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9561FD0B8; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:23:46 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:23:46 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <1717308358.1889035.1334139826359.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D0221AE6D@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #95: Why need stop flag? Is the receipt of DRO not sufficient to indicate completion of route discovery?
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, 11 Apr 2012 10:23:48 -0000

Please see inline

Thanks
Mukul

#95: Why need stop flag? Is the receipt of DRO not sufficient to indicate completion of route discovery?

 Resolution: No because multiple DROs would be generated if multiple source  routes are being discovered.

 Discussion:

 p15 :  Stop (S): This flag, when set to one by a target, indicates that  the P2P-RPL route discovery is over.

 [Cedric]
 Is this bit really usefull ? My guess is that it will be always set to 1.
 If you hear a DRO, this indeed means that the RDO has reached the target,  so you could just stop processing RDO when you hear a DRO.
 Do we really need a flag to stop RDO processing or the hearing of a DRO  type message could do the job ?

 [Mukul]
 A P2P-RPL invocation might involve discovery of multiple source routes. In  that case, receipt of a DRO does not mean route discovery is over. Only  when the target sets the stop flag in the DRO, a node could be sure that  the route discovery is over.

[Cedric2]
OK fo multiple discovery.
But if I want to discover a route to a multicast group of target. I set a multicast adress in the target field of the RDO. Then, do I received as many DRO message as the number of target reached ? In that case, would the first DRO with a "S" flag stop the RDO propagation to reach all the target included in the multicast group ?

[Mukul2]
A target cannot set the S flag to one in the DRO if the target address in the P2P-RDO specified a multicast address. See the following text at the end of page 21 in P2P-RPL-9:

"The target MAY set the stop flag inside the DRO message to one if



Goyal, et al.           Expires September 7, 2012              [Page 21]
 
Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-09             March 2012


   o  this router is the only target specified in the corresponding DIO,
      i.e., the corresponding DIO specified a unicast address of the
      router as the Target inside the P2P-RDO with no additional targets
      specified via RPL Target Options; and

" 

[Cedric3] 
So how do you stop the RDO flooding when the target adress is mulicast ? 

[Mukul3]

Stop flag cannot be used when the target address is multicast or when multiple unicast targets are there. The DIO generation will stop when the DAG dies. In the meanwhile, trickle algorithm would hopefully avoid unnecessary message generation. Note that the draft recommends a very small value for the redundancy constant.

-- 
-----------------------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…                  |      Owner:  mukul@…
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |  Milestone:
Component:  p2p-rpl                |    Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |   Keywords:
-----------------------------------+---------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/95>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll