Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments

Federico Consoli <admin@ipv6it.org> Sat, 05 May 2012 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <admin@ipv6it.org>
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 554A021F85AC for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 08:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t9r3-Ac5EPDh for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 May 2012 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034E421F85AA for <Roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 May 2012 08:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so2544601wgb.13 for <Roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 May 2012 08:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=W6UgaXz8v7fU64JoJ8NbGC+l+CTPdRq9UYfrzN7w+2g=; b=IWSeoIBxJs1tvoSKCoDCB5Lq7ODB98rjhGIJ+MyN+Y3oY1LxN62gNkQMIu9fCbKBnI MVc2LTHuDtpvuQJ5ShK7BCAOcQy525Wh/oe4wA3D9xrwnvhnKcmCF1cBOWKa/ZPzNLsj KEQ9tdVPiR8QivaYwZ3JtK9+jdiQ2BuTz0+/eu0FQZj5LNG6TNz/fANylyyFpiQk+vxf ++Nb5gTJvL4oZgXLwKQCWwEParJLbB7EJLBH0DOKBvAHxlFO9aIz5nGFodnqczPNQTeo iai8dfRbdQ0NCFu18UG8aFcm5JUpL8teDyyo5nfAzcRG3X/bdHdKvUB//QsYGbTpjxkp orZg==
Received: by 10.180.104.230 with SMTP id gh6mr21560168wib.22.1336231408071; Sat, 05 May 2012 08:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (host77-121-dynamic.8-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [87.8.121.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ca3sm6474118wib.6.2012.05.05.08.23.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 05 May 2012 08:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FA545E9.4030002@ipv6it.org>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 17:23:21 +0200
From: Federico Consoli <admin@ipv6it.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roll@ietf.org
References: <1214243683.280068.1336228455558.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1214243683.280068.1336228455558.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDctsC8+Rg5wDD2VYDCWDFVuyakMqBAPKyHKMOXlMsy8XGG8KVX0O9PErssx5Moo8UFleZ
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sat, 05 May 2012 15:23:30 -0000

Yes but even if you got a small Imin value, network congestion may be 
only in a small initial period because Imin is incremented at each 
submission.
IMHO I think that K=1 is too conservative.
The situation that I describedcan be seen from another point of view.

Suppose now that A and B got about 15-20 neighbor.
A got a rank of 500
B got a rank of 3000

A suppresses DIOs for the reason described previously so node B will 
continue to use a bad path for a very long time because it does "not 
know" that node A "exists". I think that K should be at least =2 or more.
> On the other hand, if Imin/K are set less conservatively, you might see too many DIOs generated. There is no silver bullet. No single setting would work well in all situations. We do provide some guidance on how to set trickle timer in Section 9.2 of the draft. The trickle parameter values in default configuration option are a conservative estimate based on the desire to avoid too many DIOs. If these settings are not OK for a particular deployment, well then the default configuration option should not be used. The connectivity variance you described is indeed a tricky situation and would require a tradeoff with the need to avoid generating too many DIOs. I imagine one possible solution could be to allow a node to set its k based on its position (rank) in the DAG (k increases as you move closer to the edge). But, again there might be cases where this (or any other fix) wont work.
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Federico Consoli"<admin@ipv6it.org>
> To: roll@ietf.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 4:04:09 AM
> Subject: [Roll]  I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10 comments
>
> Hi,
> I disagree with the default value of trickle timer, especially for
> Imin=6 and K=1.
> If you got a dense network it could lead to a very long time to build DAG.
>
> Eg. Suppose you got 2 node A, B.
> Node A got about 15-20 neighbor
> Node B got only A as a neighbor.
>
> When node A receive its first DIO it resets trickle to Imin and it
> starts trickle timer. Since A got a lot of neighbor its probably receive
> another consistent DIO so it will suppress the DIO message and it will
> increase its Imin to 7. So if node A suppress 6-8 times its DIO node B
> will receive it after a long time. Finally if the link A-B got an ETX of
> 2 or 3 (or more) this time doubles.
>
> These situations are not uncommon, especially in the routers at the edge
> of dense networks.
>


-- 
Regards

Consoli Federico