Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4?
C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com> Wed, 11 April 2012 12:45 UTC
Return-Path: <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
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 3940021F8592 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, 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 Qi2n2+GbHXIG for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5D721F858A for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail72-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.232) by AM1EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.3.204.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:03 +0000
Received: from mail72-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail72-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F44A02ED; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -11
X-BigFish: VPS-11(zzc89bh1432N1453Mzz1202hzzz2dh2a8h668h839hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.248.181; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:AMXPRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received: from mail72-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail72-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1334148300298999_29038; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.229]) by mail72-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4100E40058; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AMXPRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.248.181) by AM1EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (10.3.207.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:44:54 +0000
Received: from AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.137]) by AMXPRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.57.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0143.004; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:44:27 +0000
From: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4?
Thread-Index: AQHNExt2WB0Ei/9t6USXDGCl+MKLpJaMPEqwgAUul4CAAtuWQIABUpcAgAACYYA=
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:44:27 +0000
Message-ID: <7D81DED5-2C87-4A57-88C5-F71F681D3D7B@watteco.com>
References: <1421177451.1889423.1334147754525.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1421177451.1889423.1334147754525.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.3.4.7]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <15AD28B3E99DB34089499DF04C61A0D5@eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: watteco.com
Cc: "<roll@ietf.org>" <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation can discovery upto 4 source routes. Why 4?
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 12:45:07 -0000
inline, Le 11 avr. 2012 à 14:35, Mukul Goyal a écrit : > Inline. > > > > #93: Whether P2P-RPL should support establishment of a backward hop-by-hop route? > > Resolution: Open > > Discussion: > > p12 : This specification does not allow for the establishment of hop-by- hop routes in the backward direction. > > [Cedric] > Why ? This would enable to establish 2 routes within a single route request. > Furthermore, you stipulates in the draft that links have to be bidirectional to propagates RDO, in order to be able to send back the DRO. > So if I understand it correctly you ensure that you have a reliable path in both ways. Why using it in a single way only ? > > [Mukul] > Suppose a DRO establishing a forward hop-by-hop route fails to make it to the origin. In this case, all we have is some nodes storing the hop-by-hop state for a broken route but that route is never used since the origin never gets the DRO. On the other hand, if the DRO establishing a backward hop-by-hop route fails to make it to the origin, we have a broken route that the target is likely to use (to reach the origin). So, if we want P2P-RPL to establish a backward hop-by-hop route, the target MUST ask for a DRO-ACK from the origin (to make sure that the DRO does reach the origin and hence the backward route is not broken). This can be done if you think it will be useful. We did not include this in P2P-RPL because we did not have a usecase for backward hop-by-hop routes and we wanted to avoid the additional complexity. > > This is how we can implement this functionality: we will let the target decide whether it wants the DRO to establish a backward hop-by-hop route. > In that case: > 1) the target will set a new flag, the B flag (B for backward hop-by-hop route), inside the DRO to let intermediate routers know that backward route state needs to be established as well; > 2) the target will set the A flag to require a DRO-ACK from the origin; > 3) the target will specify (inside a new field in the DRO), an RPLInstanceID under which the hop-by-hop state for the backward route will be stored. Note that the RPLInstanceID of the forward route (selected by the origin) may not be OK for use in backward route (because the target may have already used this RPLInstanceID for another hop-by-hop route, using different routing-metrics/constraints/OF, to the origin). > When the intermediate routers receive this DRO, they will store the hop- by-hop state for the backward route. This hop-by-hop state will consist > of: > 1) Target address (taken from P2P-RDO inside the DRO). > 2) RPLInstanceID specified by the target > 3) The destination, i.e., the origin address (same as DODAGID inside the DRO). > > Do you want this functionality? > > [Cedric2] > The group has to discuss and decide wether it is usefull or not. I personnaly think that RPL-P2P draft may be used for binding devices, so it could be valuable to create a 2 way path between the origin and the target. So I would vote in favor of such a mechanism. > Though, I don't think we should create a new DAG (i.e. select a new RPLInstanceID) for the backward route. What I would like is just the ability for 2 devices to exchange packet in both ways using the same temporary DAG created by RPL-P2P. Let me explain the use case with an example : For instance, if you have nodes deployed in a building or a city, and you want to configure some of them. An operator could go in the area where devices to be programmed are installed (or in the neighborhood at least) with a "configurator node", and need to established a P2P route between this configurator node and the node(s) to be configurated. They create a temporary DAG (possibly through several hops) and exchange configuration frames. Because such messages are critically important, you often need application layer acknowledgments, so a backward route is needed. > Is the actual specification compliant with such a use case without modification ? (using piggybacked DATA inside RDO and DRO messages) ? Or do wee need an additional mechanism such as the one you described ? > > [Mukul2] > The target can always use the route inside a received P2P-RDO to source-route a message (e.g. an application level ack) back to the origin. Also, as you noticed, the target can place one or more data options inside the DRO to send an application level message back to the origin. So, the use case you have mentioned (which is, by the way, a common use case in commercial building environment) is supported by current P2P-RPL specification. In my view, no additional mechanism is required if the intent is to just support the usecase you described. Infact, we could not come up with a usecase where backward hop-by-hop routes are absolutely must. So, we decided to keep the specs simple by not allowing establishment of such routes. Also, currently we are shooting for an experimental RFC. If, at a later stage, we realize that backward hop-by-hop routes are necessary, we could support them in standards track RFC. > > [Cedric3] > Ok, the data option seems simple and efficient enough for the use case I pointed out. > Let's keep it as the default option to do simple P2P data exchange. > > [Mukul3] > Whether the target uses data option in the DRO or a regular data packet (source routed using the discovered route) to reach the origin is target's prerogative. P2P-RPL spec has to be silent in this matter. > > [Cedric3] > If more periodic and reliable traffic is needed between 2 nodes in a RPL network, then I think we should include a 2 way path establishment. > > [Mukul3] > So you want backward hop-by-hop route? Target using the discovered route as a source route won't be sufficient? [Cedric4] Let me reword it : I'm OK to close this ticket as it is an experimental intended status. Using the discovered route as a source route is sufficient, and the picky backed data option is OK with what I had in mind. If this draft wants to step up to a standard track, then it could be valuable to discuss the backward hop by hop route establishment. >
- [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocation ca… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… C Chauvenet
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… C Chauvenet
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… C Chauvenet
- [Roll] Closure text for ticket #93 Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #93: A single P2P-RPL invocatio… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] Closure text for ticket #93 JP Vasseur