IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 04 July 2019 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 DB4E3120048 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5pEQlogAczfW for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBEB412003F for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 04:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 200116b82ccfc400fd192d294e4f8a25.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:2ccf:c400:fd19:2d29:4e4f:8a25]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hiztu-0001Hi-Vg; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:27:42 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB35659BA8A9C5D1A810DF9A1DD8FA0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:27:42 +0200
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <40B8B554-40C5-43E8-ACB0-C10F89C085EA@kuehlewind.net>
References: <982B626E107E334DBE601D979F31785C5DF0BFA2@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB3558B443C789222A7604184ED8FD0@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESswJ0TozAJCa4o0nJOvGToi-324M4CY9beWWQmOB-Cp6PQ@mail.gmail.com> <781F0E6E-5F97-49C4-8E5C-3933088D87E7@kuehlewind.net> <MN2PR11MB35659BA8A9C5D1A810DF9A1DD8FA0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1562239665;9c3d8088;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hiztu-0001Hi-Vg
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/kZo99sKrLrVT_NQKNna2vfp7a0c>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 11:27:48 -0000

I think that is also a good additional to have. I would recommend to discus the boundaries in both directions: what the maximum rate I should ever to for in order to not permanently overload the network and what are the usual considerations to set these parameters correctly for my use case.

Mirja


> On 4. Jul 2019, at 13:22, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> You have a point there, Mirja.
> 
> UDP over LLNs may have to live with durations that are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude longer than usual in more classical links these days. It can take a minute and more to get a message through. 
> 
> So yes, a bit of text that says that the typical latencies and turn-around-trip delays observed on the Internet and the default settings that derive from that may not apply in LLNs and need to be revisited depending on the link type and the number of hops in case of a mesh network.
> 
> Is that what you are indicating to us?
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
>> Sent: jeudi 4 juillet 2019 13:05
>> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> <pthubert@cisco.com>
>> Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Roll] Retrying DCO/DAO, retry parameters
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> My request wasn’t to specify this in detail for every scenario, it was to set
>> boundaries about what's safe to do. The 3 seconds I mentions are the
>> recommendation given in RFC8085, however, if you have a good reason to use
>> different values that possible but it would be good to provide more reasoning
>> then about when it is still safe to use the values and when it should be
>> avoided.
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4. Jul 2019, at 12:44, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On June 27, 2019 at 1:54:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> (pthubert@cisco.com) wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>>> RPL is designed to operate in very different environment, and some LLNs
>> can be very slow, very lossy or even both. This is why RFC 6550 refrains from
>> being too specific.
>>>> Maybe it is good enough to add text indicating that the values used for DCO
>> are expected to be similar/consistent with those used in DAO?
>>> I agree with Pascal.  In fact, the diversity of environments not only makes it
>> very hard to be too specific, but it is one of the reasons the WG has produced
>> Applicability Statements for them: not all deployments are the same.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Alvaro.
>>> 
>>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email