Re: [Roll] Loop free local DODAG repair solution

C Chauvenet <> Fri, 26 October 2012 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD74B21F8644 for <>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.122
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.524, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nlFEuCLUeysN for <>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847DF21F8633 for <>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:11:03 +0000
Received: from mail177-va3 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E7C2C01EA; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:11:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -27
X-BigFish: VPS-27(zzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bhc85dh1418Izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh5eeeKz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh1155h)
Received: from mail177-va3 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail177-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1351267859536579_21512; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:10:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EEC92A00C2; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:10:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:10:58 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0224.004; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:10:55 +0000
From: C Chauvenet <>
To: Jianlin Guo <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Loop free local DODAG repair solution
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:10:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_97B69B30E0EF244B940B65EA541E3F2D215676A7DBXPRD0510MB395_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Loop free local DODAG repair solution
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:11:04 -0000

Le 26 oct. 2012 à 17:36, Jianlin Guo a écrit :

We compared performance metrics such as packet delivery rate.


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] :



On 10/26/2012 11:21 AM, C Chauvenet wrote:
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:

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 ?




For your second question, further investigation and experiments are needed.


On 10/25/2012 8:08 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

Jianlin Guo <><> 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<>