Re: [Roll] Loop free local DODAG repair solution

[Jianlin Guo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Phil,

Thank you for your valuable comments. There may be one more major case 
where a RPL node has a null parent set, that is, parent node of a RPL 
node becomes unreachable. This is a typical case in lossy networks. For 
example, a mobile object could block wireless link between two RPL nodes.

The key differences between DIS and DRQ/DRP are:
1) A DRQ message can travel multiple hops. # of hops is controlled by a 
parameter named MH (Maximum Hop) in DRQ message.
2) Upon receiving a DRQ message, a neighbor node responds with DRP 
message only if neighbor node has non-empty parent set and a rank lower 
than rank of the DRQ transmitting node. Otherwise, it may forward DRQ 
message to its parent node.
3) Receiving of a DRP message guarantees the discovery of a new parent node.
4) Value of MH parameter controls local repair. MH can be set to a small 
value, e.g. 1,2 or 3, so that DRQ message do not travel too far.

Jianlin
On 10/29/2012 6:09 PM, Philip Levis wrote:
> I'd like to take a step back here and discuss MaxRankIncrease and the notion of null parent sets.
>
> The two major cases where a RPL node has a null parent set are:
>    1) The node has no members in its neighbor set
>    2) The node has members of its neighbor set, but all of them advertise a Rank of INFINITE_RANK. The major case we're concerned about here is when rule 3 of 8.2.2.4 requires nodes to advertise INFINITE_RANK due to the value of MaxRankIncrease.
>
> I don't think the local repair scheme will fix case 1. So we're really talking about case 2.
>
> MaxRankIncrease emerged in specifying RPL as a way to support both ZigBee-style centralized periodic tree reconstruction triggers (MaxRankIncrease == 0) as well as CTP-style completely distributed operation while simultaneously providing a cap to the count-to-infinity problem. So really, the issue here is when you have a network with a small MaxRankIncrease and don't want to reconstruct the entire tree, there are valid parents that could be used, but a node does not have them in its neighbor/parent set.
>
> Thinking about it this way (am I wrong?), I am a bit confused by the claim that the draft is a local repair. Assuming a node has to follow rule 3 in 8.2.2.4, this is not a repair mechanism, but rather a neighbor discovery mechanism. Could you explain how DRQ/DRP solve a problem that a DIS with a proper Solicited Information option can't solve? This was the original intent of DIS with Solicited Information. Or perhaps I'm not understanding DRQ/DRP correctly?
>
> Phil
>
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Jianlin Guo wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the paper. I agree with [1] on that "dismantling of the sub-DAG, rooted at the node doing the rank increase, causes more turmoil in the network than the routing loops themselves".
>>
>> Now, consider a case in which a node's parent set becomes empty. In this case, RPL provides following set of actions:
>>
>> 1) Start its own floating DODAG
>> 2) Poison the broken path
>> 3) Trigger a local repair
>>
>> Both 1) and 2) actions will increase packet delivery delay time (which may be not acceptable for some applications) and possibly cause packet dropping due to limited buffer size of a LLN node (which may also be not acceptable for some applications). So, trigger a local repair is a practical option. Our local repair mechanism is designed for this purpose and it does not create any loops.
>>
>> Jianlin
>>
>> On 10/26/2012 12:10 PM, C Chauvenet wrote:
>>> Le 26 oct. 2012 à 17:36, Jianlin Guo a écrit :
>>>
>>>> We compared performance metrics such as packet delivery rate.
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>> In general do you have a document about your experiments that you would like to share ?
>>> I think it could be a good way to defend your mechanism.
>>>
>>> There are 2 sub questions related to your draft :
>>>
>>>   - Is there a strong need for an additional mechanism to prevent loops ? (the HbH header option mentioned by phil is already there).
>>>   - Is your mechanism the good way to do so (overhead induced, efficiency...)
>>>
>>> As mentioned by Phil, this subject has been previously discussed inside ROLL few years ago, and did not recommend to add such mechanisms.
>>>
>>> For instance, [1] concludes that
>>>
>>> "the turmoil caused
>>> by dismantling of the sub-DAGs in order to increase ranks
>>> may be much more than what the routing loops themselves
>>> will cause. Consequently, the use of such loop avoidance
>>> mechanism in the operation of a DAG based routing protocol
>>> can not be universally recommended."
>>>
>>> [1] : http://www.emmanuelbaccelli.org/publications/AINA_2010.pdf
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Cédric.
>>>
>>>> On 10/26/2012 11:21 AM, C Chauvenet wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Thank you for your answer.
>>>>> See inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 26 oct. 2012 à 15:27, Jianlin Guo a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/25/2012 12:06 PM, C Chauvenet wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 25 oct. 2012 à 16:01, Jianlin Guo a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For your first question, draft-clausen-lln-rpl-experiences-04 pointed out that "it can be observed that with current implementations of RPL, such as the ContikiRPL                                   implementation, loops do occur - and, frequently. During the same experiments described in Section 13, a snapshot of the DODAG was made every ten seconds. In 74.14% of the 4114 snapshots, at least one loop was observed".
>>>>>>> Is it something that you observed in your own deployments ?
>>>>>>> More specifically : did you find similar results ?
>>>>>> We observed the occurrence of loops, unfortunately we did not measure the percentage.
>>>>> So how did you evaluate the benefit of the mechanism that you proposed ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cédric.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cédric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For your second question, further investigation and experiments are needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jianlin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2012 8:08 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jianlin Guo <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>      JG> Dear ROLL WG members,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      JG> As we all know that loop is an open issue in RPL. Experiment shows that loop
>>>>>>>>>      JG> occurs quite often. We have proposed a loop free local DODAG
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you quantify "quite often"?
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any metrics for how often loops occur, and what the cost is
>>>>>>>>> of their repair?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that the WG would be very very very interested in additional -experiences
>>>>>>>>> draft, or pointers to papers explaining same, that gives a repeateable
>>>>>>>>> experiment in which loops are observed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Roll mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll