IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [roll] #97: A fixed value for DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME not OK for all P2P-RPL deployments.

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sun, 08 April 2012 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=4385599de=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 98C4A21F846A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.193
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.406, 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 RVuPqNneypa2 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B5821F8468 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EALgNgk9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABDhXO2UAEBAQQBAQEgSwsMDxEEAQEDAg0WAwIpHwkIBhOIDgusBIh1gSGBL44TgRgEiFqNEoERiEWGYIMF
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B58E6A8E; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:16:41 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8RDM7kttht1Z; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:16:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.177]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3130AE6A72; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 17:16:41 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 17:16:41 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
Message-ID: <820013775.1852322.1333923401124.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D022165D6@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] #97: A fixed value for DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME not OK for all P2P-RPL deployments.
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:16:42 -0000

Hi JP, Michael

Kindly close this ticket.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "C Chauvenet" <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
To: roll@ietf.org, mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:21:38 AM
Subject: RE: [Roll] [roll] #97: A fixed value for DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME not OK for all P2P-RPL deployments.



-----Message d'origine-----
De : roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de roll issue tracker
Envoyé : jeudi 5 avril 2012 13:03
À : mukul@UWM.EDU; jpv@cisco.com
Cc : roll@ietf.org
Objet : [Roll] [roll] #97: A fixed value for DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME not OK for all P2P-RPL deployments.

#97: A fixed value for DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME not OK for all P2P-RPL deployments.

 Resolution: Make DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME as well as MAX_DRO_RETRANSMISSIONS  configurable parameters.

 Discussion:

 p25 :  o DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME: The time duration a target waits for the DRO-  ACK before retransmitting a DRO message. DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME has a
      value of 1 second.

 [Cedric]
 I'm not sure it is compliant with all RPL deployments.
 Could we adapt it to the characteristics of the network used ?

 [Mukul]
 I am OK with making DRO_ACK_WAIT_TIME as well as MAX_DRO_RETRANSMISSIONS  configurable parameters.

[Cedric2]
Safe enough.

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/97>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email