[Roll] Closure text for ticket #94

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Wed, 11 April 2012 23:24 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0685C11E8102 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.258
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.258 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Je8TKAGhppQL for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (ip2mta.uwm.edu []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4A211E809D for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAAYRhk9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABEhWa3DSNWNQINGQJZBoghp3uJe4kJgS+PLoEYBIhajRKQNoMFgTYX
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5534DE6A90; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:23:59 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lkJuI9NcTqRZ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:23:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu []) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C35CE6A72; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:23:59 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:23:59 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <902775528.1902060.1334186639127.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D022165B2@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
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: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #94
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 23:24:17 -0000

#94: Why does DRO travel by multicast.

 Because we want the stop flag in DRO to reach as many nodes as  possible.


 p14 :  A DRO message travels from the target to the origin via link-local  multicast along the
   route specified inside the Address vector in the P2P-RDO.

 Why using multicast if you know every destinators ?
 Could we unicast packets to each destinators in the address vector ?

 DRO travels by link local multicast so that the nodes, that are on the  temporary DAG but not necessarily on a discovered route, may know that the  route discovery is over (via the stop flag) and there is no need to  generate any more DIOs. This may lead to a significant reduction in the
 (unnecessary) DIOs generated. Only the routers on the discovered route do  the multicast-based forwarding though.

Makes sense, thank's for clarification.
This ticket can be closed.