Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL

[Mukul Goyal <[e-mail]>]

>Okay, but I think that should be explicitly mentioned in the use case
section (or somewhere else).

Sure. I will add text to that effect. Note that the tradeoff is not straightforward: even when the P2P-RPL routes are not much shorter than routes along a global DAG, they would still avoid traffic concentration around the root.

Thanks
Mukul 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ulrich Herberg" <[e-mail]>
To: "Mukul Goyal" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "roll WG" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:16:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL

Mukul,

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Mukul Goyal <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >I don't see anywhere in this section that the draft is only limited to
> > 4-5 hops, as mentioned today. If the protocol can run in larger networks but
> > only for routers in maximum hop distance of 4-5, that should be spelled out
> > (together with a warning that TTL of the control messages has to be set to
> > 4-5 to avoid network wide flooding).
>
> P2P-RPL can certainly discover routes of any hop length, just that its
> application would be most useful when the target is within 4-5 hops. If the
> target is further out, the route along a global DAG might be almost as good.
> This ofcourse depends on network topology and routing metrics in use etc.

Okay, but I think that should be explicitly mentioned in the use case
section (or somewhere else).

Regards
Ulrich