Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Wed, 04 April 2012 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=43413a6b9=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 2C4DB21F85AC for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.613
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, 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 us+Y6WQnD7-K for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip2mta.uwm.edu (smtp.uwm.edu [129.89.7.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9684921F85A5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap0EAMdafE9/AAAB/2dsb2JhbABFhU21XgEBBAEjVgwPEQMBAQEDAg0ZAlEIBhOIBAWoM4hSiQmBL44NgRgEiFiNC5AwgwWBNhc
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98124E6A90; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:31:46 -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 uNnmlI9i30jH; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:31:46 -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 45900E6A72; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:31:46 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:31:46 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Richard Kelsey <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
Message-ID: <1449714963.1808443.1333549906211.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <87ty0z8tib.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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] #86: G flag: do we need that text?
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, 04 Apr 2012 14:32:07 -0000

Richard,

>> The temporary DAGs used in P2P-RPL are not grounded, they are
>> temporary. I think that all transient/temporary DAGs are
>> floating by their very nature.

>This I don't follow at all.  If a device has a temporary need to
send or receive data from many other devices, it makes perfect
sense for it to create a a temporary, grounded DODAG.  If there
is a lot of P2P traffic, it makes perfect sense to have permanent,
floating DODAGs for routing that traffic.  

Let me modify my statement a little:

Transient DAGs used in P2P-RPL are floating by their very nature. Their lifetime is fleetingly small. They are not used for routing. They impart no connectivity to the nodes joining them.

Thanks
Mukul

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Kelsey" <richard.kelsey@ember.com>
> To: roll@ietf.org
> Cc: mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:36:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #86: G flag: do we need that text?
> 
> > From: roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
> > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:08:50 +0000
> > 
> > #86: G flag: do we need that text?
> > 
> >  Problem (resolition is proposed)
> >  ------------------------------
> >  Disagreement on the meaning of 'G' bit and imposed setting to 0;
> > 
> >  Proposed resolution
> >  ---------------------------
> >  The origin sets the G flag based on its perception of whether joining
> >  how the flag's value would affect the rank calculation under the OF
> >  being used. By default, the G flag is set to zero given the temporary
> >  nature of the DAG being created.
> 
> I disagree with the proposed resolution.  It adds needless
> confusion.  The G flag is 0 if and only if the DODAG is floating.
> There is no point to allowing floating DODAGs with a P2P-RDO
> option.  I suggest that the G bit be set to 1 and that routers be
> explicitly prohibited from creating floating DODAGs with a
> P2P-RDO option.
>                                    -Richard Kelsey
>