Re: [Roll] "Node energy" as a metric for MRHOF

JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com> Sat, 02 June 2012 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jpv@cisco.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 C163221F853C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 pP9YBSlO-1wa for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F0821F853B for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jpv@cisco.com; l=1031; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338647137; x=1339856737; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5xKbEQi+NNDFtsfn3cf1bwxZZatXbsiXJSZx5d7JEXE=; b=QbTKLaBek6cHTLvBnaXw/QuubC47ISzpt+3XHczKYJafgkSZXmJIZGbH ksQ19DFa0LKCOpKpXcAZCliq43864qM6SAmhnSzi0F65Fr0V5/rSZEuub NjDQZwsdDej0qwBK35pKmZZ2A3aj/P1L+tNMPQqQFWWq3dDtiI3SyWJ+I 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAOkgyk+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFtB2BB4IYAQEBAwEBAQEPAVQHCwULCw44JzAGEyKHZAQBC5dSnxUEixEFhStgA5UbhVCIQIFmgmI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,701,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="47398304"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2012 14:25:37 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q52EPbkP003670; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:25:37 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.79]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:36 -0700
Received: from [10.60.114.229] ([10.60.114.229]) by xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:25:37 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: JP Vasseur <jpv@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <943C0516-F78E-43FD-AECD-F66A8B930F21@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:22:00 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67497215-FAB5-4AC1-B5D0-7FB9963AF3B9@cisco.com>
References: <943C0516-F78E-43FD-AECD-F66A8B930F21@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2012 14:25:37.0323 (UTC) FILETIME=[943DCFB0:01CD40CB]
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of@tools.ietf.org, roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] "Node energy" as a metric for MRHOF
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: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:25:37 -0000

Thanks Ralph. When you say "path cost based on node energy", you refer to using a cumulative metric where node metric are inversely 
proportional to the remaining energy ? I am asking since there are several approaches to compute the metric, it could be coupled with 
the remaining energy used as a constraint, …
Thanks.

JP.

On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:53 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:

> I came across a new puzzle while re-reading draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of.
> 
> "Node energy" doesn't appear to be listed as an additive metric in RFC 6551.  Reading the description of the node energy metric, which carries remaining battery capacity as a percentage of initial capacity, I have no clue how a node using MRHOF would compute a path cost based on node energy.  Does node energy really fit as one of the metrics that MRHOF can use?
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll