Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05
Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp> Tue, 17 September 2013 10:58 UTC
Return-Path: <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
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 8718511E83AD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 jNJKs2nBT88S for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx2.toshiba.co.jp (inet-tsb5.toshiba.co.jp [202.33.96.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CC711E83E0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tsbmgw-mgw02.tsbmgw-mgw02.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.200.50]) by imx2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id r8HAvGkx016542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900 (JST)
Received: from tsbmgw-mgw02 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw02.tsbmgw-mgw02.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8HAvGQH016757 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw02 (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1) with SMTP ID 323 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900 (JST)
Received: from arc1.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.194.235]) by tsbmgw-mgw02.tsbmgw-mgw02.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8HAvGJa016748 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc1.toshiba.co.jp id r8HAvGtR009908 for roll@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900 (JST)
Received: from unknown [133.199.192.144] by arc1.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id VAA09905; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900
Received: from mx11.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id r8HAvGGf012790 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:16 +0900 (JST)
Received: from spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp by toshiba.co.jp id r8HAvFER000128; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:15 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [133.196.16.145] (ncg-dhcp145.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp [133.196.16.145]) by spiffy21.isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A6197D6A; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:57:15 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <5238357B.2000800@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:56:59 +0900
From: Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
References: <CE58AC02.23779%d.sturek@att.net> <fb5b2ee3e24c5453c233a50908edad24@xs4all.nl> <12193.1379344548@sandelman.ca> <bdbfe97d877ed5a061899dedfc5d41a6@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <bdbfe97d877ed5a061899dedfc5d41a6@xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: roll@ietf.org, peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:58:06 -0000
Hi Peter, Thank you for sharing your scenario and parameters. Could you tell me how did you selected the parameters? I have following two scenarios... and considering how MPL works on the cases. Scenario A (commanding) 1) maybe up to 30 neighbours 2) a few/hour 3) end-to-end 5 seconds, 500ms per hop 4) up to 10 hops 5) not sure 6) many, including multiple threads of Scenario B 7) not sure (80%?) Scenario B (file transfer) 1) maybe up to 30 neighbors 2) 25 packets / hour 3) no deadline per packet 4) up to 10 hops 5) not sure 6) multiple threads of Scenario B and many other traffics 7) not sure (80%?) Regards, Yusuke (2013-09-17 19:21), peter van der Stok wrote: > Hi Michael, > corresponding questions can be: > > 1) What are the maximum and minimum 1-hop MPL router neighbours of all the MPL routers? > 2) what is the arrival rate of new packets that need repetition in a MPL router > 3) Is there a deadline associated with the packets > 4) What is the shortest number of hops of the longest path between sources and destinations > 5) What are the values of the MAC: back-off values, retries, buffer size. > 6) What is the background load of other non MPL applications. > 7) arrival probability of 1-hop packets > 8) other parameters I did not stumble on. > > The corresponding design space is incredibly large, and probably only a limited subset of the design space is viable. > I have gone through only a limited number of possibilities, and analysing the consequences for MPL took me quite a large amount of time. > > In one of my scenarios: > 1) 5 neighbours > 2) once every 100 ms (rate at sources is once every 300-500 ms) > 3) yes, 200 ms > 4) 5 hops, with mostly 1 hop > 5) no buffer, retry 1, back-off 2 > 6) absent > 7) 100-80% > > leading to k=3-5, Imin =30-70 ms, repeat = 2, Imax n/a. > > It may help that operational boundary conditions together with appropriate MPL parameter values are published in the applicability statements. > All applicability statements together may give a good hint which MPL parameters and boundary conditions to choose. > > My 5 cents, > > peter > > > > > > Michael Richardson schreef op 2013-09-16 17:15: >> peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> various settings for IMIN, IMAX and k. A process similar to this (with >> >> knowledge of the topology and messaging profile) is needed for tuning >> >> these values in a real deployment setting. >> >> peter> After looking for an appropriate setting for Imin, Imax and k, I >> peter> slowly learnt that these settings depend on the topology of the >> peter> network, the load of the network, the setting of the MAC, and >> peter> eventual real-time requirements (e.g. there is a deadline), and >> peter> the value of that deadline. The setting of k for example is >> peter> related to the number of MPL repeaters that receive a new message >> peter> and start to resend it, possibly interfering with each other and >> peter> probably incrementing the c value of the next hop, where the >> peter> maximum value of c is related to the Imin value. Sending a packet >> peter> takes as little as 3 ms, but when the MAC stores three packets and >> peter> the they all back-off a maximum number of times, delays of a few >> peter> hundred milliseconds to seconds become possible. When there is >> peter> buffer space for packets before and in the MAC, the Imin value can >> peter> be chosen as low as 1 ms, the resend of packets is then completely >> peter> determined by the load on the network. >> >> This is an excellent template discussion... can I put it into the MPL >> parameter part of the RPL applicability template? >> >> Do you think you could rephrase this in the form of questions to be >> answered? >> >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works >> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
- [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft-iet… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Dijk, Esko
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… yoshihiro.ohba
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Robert Cragie
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Yusuke DOI
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Robert Cragie
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… peter van der Stok
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… Kerry Lynn
- Re: [Roll] WGLC - Working Group Last Call - draft… peter van der Stok