Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN

[Don Sturek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

Currently, all 5000 devices are members of the same DODAG.

Don


On 10/16/14 5:54 AM, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hello Michael
>
>I think that saying that MPL is the default is quite exaggerated.
>
>RPL has a classical multicast built in, which is a simple extension to
>storing mode ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550#section-12).
>The trouble is that this hardly fits with non-storing.
>
>BIER (draft-wijnands-bier-architecture-00.txt) seems an appropriate
>approach for non-storing devices, considering that it makes the same
>tradeoff of bytes in packets vs. state in the nodes. BIER could be used
>for both unicast and multicast, unicast being seen as an extreme form of
>multicast. Each address, or group, or (source, group),  the node
>registers unicast to the root in pretty much the same way as we do today
>in non-storing. There is a bit offset associated to each node. When a
>packet comes in, the root looks up the list of interested nodes, sets a
>bit map at all the relevant bit offsets, and encapsulates the packet
>adding that bitmap, e.g. in an address or an option header. Each node
>maintains a bitmap per child down the RPL preferred tree, which has the
>bits set for the end nodes that are reachable via this child. These
>bitmaps could be built and re-advertised over classical storing-mode DAO
>messages whereby a node just advertises the AND of all its bitmaps to its
>preferred parent.
>
>It would seem to be the right approach for Don's problem if it were not
>for the sheer size of " Around 5000 devices in the network total ".
>
>BIER needs one bit per device in the routing bitmap. We cannot have a 5K
>bitmap in every packet. If we steal one bit in the ff1 (RFC 7371) to
>indicate a BIER routing, we could fit up to 112 hosts in a multicast IPv6
>address.  To reach 5K, we'll need to subnet. For instance, by using 8
>bits as a prefix, we could carve out 256 sets of 104 devices. For 5000
>nodes, this means roughly 50 groups, and could multiply the state in
>every node by 50, though the numbers are probably a lot less if the sets
>are formed based on geography. But then, the root may have to send
>multiple copies of a packet, as many as there are groups with at least
>one listener for that packet.
>
>Don: are these nodes all in a same DODAG? Or are they partitioned in
>smaller groups through multiple roots, or multiple instances?
>
>Pascal
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roll [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael
>>Richardson
>> Sent: mercredi 15 octobre 2014 23:57
>> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
>> Cc: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] multicast & MLD on LLN
>> 
>> 
>> Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>     >> Right, MLD is a host-router protocol.  Routers among them speak a
>>     >> routing protocol, so they wouldn¹t exchange MLD.  (A RPL ³leaf²
>>is a
>>     >> router.)
>>     >>
>>     >> > Finally I'm looking at BIER see how their ideas could apply to
>>LLNsŠ
>>     >>
>>     >> Yep.  We (TZI) have done (specified, implemented, analyzed) an
>>     >> efficient BIER-like multicast forwarding protocol for
>>non-storing mode
>>     >> a while ago.
>>     >>
>> 
>>     > I admit to some confusion here.  Is (topology-free) MPL no longer
>>the
>>     > default multicast forwarding protocol for LLN?
>> 
>> I don't know anything about BIER really... MPL is still the default at
>>this
>> point.
>> (proceedural delays getting trickle-mcast out, not-with-standing) My
>>take on
>> the conversation is that BIER has some kind of helper node that unicasts
>> everything out as appropriate.
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>