IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?

Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> Wed, 18 November 2009 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B823A6951 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:20:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J6H1fpwR9Epm for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:20:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU (cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU [171.64.64.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9173A67A4 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:20:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [76.14.71.8] (helo=[192.168.1.101]) by cs-smtp-2.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <pal@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1NAoCx-0000kd-0w; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:20:44 -0800
Message-Id: <916D30AD-8254-488B-AAFF-EC3389AA93BE@cs.stanford.edu>
From: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <be8c8d780911180205m59f997eeq5c36fe32ad846150@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:20:41 -0800
References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5DAAB837@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <8FC2D57F-98E9-46D1-B196-D8154DC1ED08@cs.stanford.edu> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5DAABD26@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <44680fe70911171015i4abaaadahb21d2b92be8bfcdc@mail.gmail.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5DAABF19@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <be8c8d780911180205m59f997eeq5c36fe32ad846150@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Scan-Signature: 9dddbef7dbf47a29383c7a3c8e5dce6e
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 18 Nov 2009 17:20:47 -0000

On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> indeed, MPR is what comes to mind in this context. This mechanism is  
> used to identify and maintain connected dominating sets in RFC 5449,  
> RFC 3626, and a slew of soon-to-be RFCs such as draft-ietf-manet- 
> nhdp, draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2.
>
> In order for nodes to see 2 neighbors in the dominating set, you  
> just need to set the value of the MPR_coverage parameter to 2.
>

Of course, RPL is a distance vector protocol, while OLSR/OSPF are link  
state protocols; that state makes connected dominating sets straight- 
forward to compute. Are there examples of connected dominating sets  
(or variants thereof) being used in a distance vector protocol? It  
seems like there would be a lot of complications.

Phil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email