Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is identical to RPLStoring mode
Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Fri, 19 November 2010 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=932801f61=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F76C3A67DB for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:02:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EV4zcNab0+7U for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:02:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265F53A677D for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([129.89.7.132]) by ip1mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2010 08:03:24 -0600
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0411E6A7C; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:23 -0600 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z2bupmgqXqQo; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.86]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4435FE6A7B; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:23 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:22 -0600
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Anders Brandt <abr@sdesigns.dk>
Message-ID: <883066000.1823239.1290175402715.JavaMail.root@mail02.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6D9687E95918C04A8B30A7D6DA805A3E01CCD546@zensys17.zensys.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.7_GA_2473.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.7_GA_2473.RHEL5_64)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: ROLL WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is identical to RPLStoring mode
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:02:37 -0000
Hi Anders I will include the change in the next version. Thanks Mukul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anders Brandt" <abr@sdesigns.dk> To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu> Cc: "ROLL WG" <roll@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:42:01 AM Subject: RE: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is identical to RPLStoring mode Hi Mukul (see inline) Cheers, Anders > -----Original Message----- > From: Mukul Goyal [mailto:mukul@uwm.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 20:48 > To: Anders Brandt > Cc: ROLL WG > Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is > identical to RPLStoring mode > > Hi Anders, > > [Anders] > > The current RPL P2P draft > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dt-roll-p2p-rpl-02 > > appears to be a little unclear on the terms > > * hop-by-hop route > * source route > * RPL Storing mode > * RPL Non-storing mode > > The introduction does a nice job of explaining the difference > of the two uncompatible modes but forgets to point out the > detail that the RPL Non-storing mode is using source routes > while RPL Storing mode implements hop-by-hop routes. > > [Mukul] > > The introduction section does say that > > "In non-storing mode operation, only the DAG root maintains > downward routing > information and hence a packet travels all the way to the DAG root, > which then sends it towards its destination using a source route." > > Then it describes the storing mode operation > > "In storing mode operation, if the destination is a DAG descendant and > the source maintains "downwards" routing state about this > descendant, > it can forward the packet along this route. Otherwise, the source > sends the packet to a DAG parent, which then applies the > same set of > rules to forward the packet further." > > I guess I could modify the first sentence as follows > > "In storing mode operation, if the destination is a DAG descendant and > the source maintains "downwards" HOP-BY-HOP routing state > about this descendant, > it can forward the packet along this route." > > Would this change be sufficient? [Anders] Yes, this definitely helps. But the last part " ...forward the packet along this route." seems to mix things up. May I suggest: " ...forward the packet to a descendant router closer to the destination..." > [Anders] > Since a given implementation is going to be either > non-storing or storing one may consider having dedicated > sections (or documents?) explaining what is required for > making a system work for non-storing or storing mode, respectively. > > [Mukul] > > Are you suggesting that hop-by-hop P2P routes can not be used > in an LLN using non-storing mode RPL operation? It seems to > me that both types of P2P routes (hop-by-hop; source) can be > used irrespective of whether core RPL operation is storing > mode or non-storing mode. > > Thanks > Mukul > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >
- [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol JP Vasseur
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol David Culler
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [Roll] Subnet Gateway Protocol Ulrich Herberg
- [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is ident… Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is i… Philip Levis
- Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is i… Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is i… Anders Brandt
- Re: [Roll] RPL P2P - Clarify that hop-by-hop is i… Mukul Goyal