IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] MRHOF draft-09 comments

Federico Consoli <admin@ipv6it.org> Tue, 24 April 2012 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <admin@ipv6it.org>
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 36ACB21F86A0 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 senHJRW9ZioO for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0936921F86A7 for <Roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so287173bku.31 for <Roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=6so93zfoVZPhjSlEmhP45Tn2W/iWi/iVCrqo9C1g55Q=; b=RVCjJzJ/SC+0PAN4I+hVy3tBCdDo6qJ9lmQ4IolHAu4HcTquWvmNLvwVCLBviYg9lC J8j93ubbTLgCelzZ4xjygZcP+X1V7QgwBwdBmiAoet5F2GgI1lGNH6Ku9a13lM3g8sA4 b52Rxwed85YfwdLzpBmYaigfzBMOHhJa8Pq/2nj3uOfOG9zIFgq8iw+HTxnsfb8ugvpS MN2Rh7E21HijelBx8AzUO9bb5B9JvydJ/67xfOHuDWuZ/PBHUZEKt28sltVMoNnx4zvF bDVqPlJMIwJPkr23AdqTieV6Xws+svGg0WQr/jswzYWSW1o35DGl8p+hpizXjl5aW2+D liyw==
Received: by 10.204.154.12 with SMTP id m12mr4781953bkw.56.1335254085867; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (myskyn.iet.unipi.it. [131.114.59.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hq5sm26883882bkc.8.2012.04.24.00.54.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F965C40.9050706@ipv6it.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:54:40 +0200
From: Federico Consoli <admin@ipv6it.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roll@ietf.org
References: <4F950E98.9080304@ipv6it.org> <908FB74E-73C7-49B2-83F1-48796118A233@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <908FB74E-73C7-49B2-83F1-48796118A233@cs.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSwaM7jhOsd4072ztJgOt8/C8NmVAGrWhma0XOPfgAqf9aEk3VHUR/K7iqGgYCIdc94Rdg
Subject: Re: [Roll] MRHOF draft-09 comments
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:54:48 -0000

Il 23/04/2012 19.23, Philip Levis ha scritto:
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:11 AM, Federico Consoli wrote:
>
>> Hi, I'm sorry but I think that it's still wrong. I think that you missed the "MRHOF draft-07 comments" post where you said:
>>
>> "I think the issue here is the MRHOF draft is not clear: A (a root) should advertise a Rank of 256, and B, following 3.3, would advertise a Rank of 256 + MinHopRankIncrease (case 3 of 3.3)."
>>
>> Infact now:
>> MHROF-09 section 6.1
>> "RPL's Rank advertisement rules can require a DODAG Root to advertise a Rank higher than its corresponding ETX value, as a DODAG Root advertises a Rank of MinHopRankIncrease."
>>
>> That it's correct.
>>
>> But
>> MHROF-09 Section 3.4
>> " DODAG Roots advertise a metric value which computes to a cost of MIN_PATH_COST."
>> And
>> MHROF-09 Section 5.
>> " MIN_PATH_COST: 0. At root, the expected transmission count is 0."
>>
>> I think that to be compliant with 6.1. MIN_PATH_COST variable should be removed and "DODAG Roots advertise a metric value which computes to a cost of MinHopRankIncrease".
>
> I think these edits are the best resolution to the MinHopRankIncrease/DODAG metric issue. If there are no objections then I will apply them in the (hopefully final) edit. Federico, your detailed feedback has be invaluable. Thank you.
>
> Phil
>
Hi,
I got no objections. You're Welcome.

-- 
Regards
Consoli Federico

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email