IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4296B1A00AB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pjpCgUT6NPnD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4756A1A00BA for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i17so16826384qcy.39 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vzINI6cSM58cbxbnhfJXQpHrtBGWas+PDpIszpWSEEk=; b=umO29gD38XUBnobCS1yXkstOwi/w9OFPwR2DrSr1asJN/QSsQt84h1m6sZ0QQL8AEL dPure/goz2wz2rBn6vdal8Eo9GNVN5xmXKfmZtLjfrXHvaIeUEFedWcTXSxO5vf84AK9 84mzYW+L/0MPVzKEI4XfaBKW2IrgQuDBMlrOo8MuoPpGxeLxDHQ2qEt75QM2wPA6pn2b cWoBmik/sTeUffQADZ0D1nZoeF0eTnp+RBVLG7tbJPKbtYPL2Z8iW9pFbWOeNUqfQAWB gQ6dVUP6zW3axGagMK2DjW9nFYCl5pdWnm7zSjIehbire5lUP5qU5kDuuNrPlCAg0akX WI+w==
X-Received: by 10.140.88.112 with SMTP id s103mr70033469qgd.47.1392256432153; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.86.245.68] (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k1sm784101qat.16.2014.02.12.17.53.49 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:53:49 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <92131c112cc511e6fdac094b533e27fe@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:53:48 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1F9FDE35-D959-46EB-A318-00A6897BCB38@gmail.com>
References: <bcd61e99e8abd20457439d149a3fb75d@xs4all.nl> <DF1C20CD-4596-4AB7-BFA9-F52AA7C28875@gmail.com> <92131c112cc511e6fdac094b533e27fe@xs4all.nl>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-MIB
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 13 Feb 2014 01:53:55 -0000

On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:19 AM 2/10/14, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> The expectation is that MPL is used where RPL is used as well.
> 
> Otherwise a second document is suggested.

I think separate MIBs would be the appropriate architecture as MPL and RPL are separate protocols and may be deployed independently.

- Ralph

> 
> Peter
> 
> Ralph Droms schreef op 2014-02-09 14:33:
>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 5:31 AM 2/7/14, peter van der Stok
>> <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> Dear authors,
>>> Is it possible to extend the RPL MIB with MPL parameters?
>> Why would MPL parameters be added to the RPL MIB?  MPL and RPL share
>> very little, if any, protocol or operational considerations.
>> - Ralph
>>> Easy suggestions are per interface the parameters:
>>> DATA_MESSAGE_IMIN, DATA_MESSAGE_IMAX, DATA_MESSAGE_K,DATA_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>> CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMIN, CONTROL_MESSAGE_IMAX, CONTROL_MESSAGE_K,CONTROL_MESSAGE_TIMER_EXPIRATIONS
>>> per interface: the enabled MC addresses.
>>> Measured values per seed and MC address: low seq nr, high seq nr
>>> the number of messages received, number of messages repeated, number of messages rejected because c>k.
>>> Looking forward to your reply,
>>> Peter
>>> --
>>> Peter van der Stok
>>> mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email