Re: [Roll] draft-rahul-roll-rpl-observations-00 Section 2.1: Wear leveling

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Rahul Arvind Jadhav <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > module doing such (relatively) frequent writes). Also RPL signaling
    > does not allow multiple state information to be clubbed together and do
    > a single write(write is in terms of pages and thus not good for less
    > number of bytes). The question is, Is it possible for RPL signaling to
    > reduce persistent write at the cost of adding some signaling during
    > node boot (at-least for 6LRs and 6LNs). Node reboot will be relatively
    > rare-occurrence (or at-least much less frequent) and thus the cost of
    > additional signaling bits might be worth it (?). Also I feel new RPL
    > extensions should consider this and do not commit to persistent storage
    > more frequently.

I think that I don't remember why a node needs to save the DTSN across
reboots.  (I hate being away from code for so long that I forget these
things, I wish I could spend more time writing code)

I think that in storing mode, that a node can set it's DTSN to whatever value
is sees in the parents' DIO, and increment from there.

I'm confused as to why any node other than the root needs it to be stored in
flash?   I do not think it should be required to store info in flash.
(OSPF doesn't require this...)
This also makes it hard to replace hardware in the field, or do firmware
updates if we have to keep this kind of data around.

Can we expand 7.1 to better explain what is written, and why?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [