[Roll] MRHOF draft-11 comments

"Mani, Mehdi" <Mehdi.Mani@itron.com> Wed, 25 July 2012 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Mehdi.Mani@itron.com>
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 88F5D21F850C for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.184
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=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 jFtkWUzrBdO3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.itron.com (mail.itron.com [198.182.8.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540F121F84F2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ITR-EXMBXVS-1.itron.com ([192.168.9.111]) by spo-exchcn-1.itron.com ([192.168.9.115]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:02:12 -0700
From: "Mani, Mehdi" <Mehdi.Mani@itron.com>
To: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:02:10 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Roll] MRHOF draft-11 comments
Thread-Index: Ac1qbhWCRB0vAOVZR0ycuOBJkWog0Q==
Message-ID: <10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B37679AE0@ITR-EXMBXVS-1.itron.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10F62A0D440ACA41A85C7CB02936A1DB5B37679AE0ITREXMBXVS1it_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Roll] MRHOF draft-11 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: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:02:14 -0000

In section 3.3, it seems that the rank value using the case 3 is always less than the one calculated in case 2; then it is useless to have it. (if my understanding is true!)  This is basically because the highest "rank increase" that would be possible is equal to MaxRankIncrese.

As an example imagine that a node (say N) has 3 father F1, F2 and F3 with respectively the ranks 50, 40 and 30. Imagine that MaxRankIncrese is 20 and MinRankIncrease is 2. Then imagine that:

Link  N --> F1 gives a rank increase = 6
Link N --> F2  gives a rank increase = MaxRankIncrese = 20
Link N --> F3  gives a rank increase = 10

Case 2 gives:

Rank=52 (Worst Father rank belongs to F1)

Case 3 gives:
40+20-20=40 (Since the highest rank is through F2)

Now consider the same example but with this changes (this is the worst case where the link to the father with worst rank gives also the highest rank increase):

Link  N --> F1 gives a rank increase = MaxRankIncrese = 20
Link N --> F2  gives a rank increase = 8
Link N --> F3  gives a rank increase = 10


Case 2 gives:
Rank=52

Case 3 gives:
50+20-20=50 (Since the highest rank is through F1)

Thanks
-Mehdi