Re: [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology-00.txt

Hi John,

Thanks, also I want to see more examples of pathology advantages. I just
have read quickly through, but happy to discuss the draft in more details
when I get more time.

AB
===

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, JeongGil Ko <jeonggil.ko@etri.re.kr> wrote:

> Hi Abdussalam,
>
> Thanks for your quick comments :)
>
> My comments in-line.
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I like the work, as I always beleive that LLN is has mixed nodes of
> different  capabilities,
> > the work I am doing has in the routing aspects similar which is about
> node ability NAP [*]. However, I support your work as well,
> >
> > Comments on your draft 00:
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > section 4>N is operating in non-storing mode so without a source routing
> > header, it will forward the packet back to S. Thus the packet bounces
> > between N and S.
> >
> > A node should not forward to prefered next-hop towice, or it should
> never forward (while it doesn't know the path to destination) to a node
> which already send the packet to it.
>
> I can improve the text in -01 so that eventually an ICMPv6 error message
> is initiated.
>
> > ----------------
> > section 5>A new mode of operation (MOP) that allows a node to choose
> either
> >    to implement the storing or non-storing features, or both.  The
> >    changes below are made compared to the original storing and non-
> >    storing modes.
> >
> > you may add, that there are alot of LLN possibility of it nodes
> non-store and store modes, as destinations maybe store or/and non-store and
> the root also maybe store and/or non-store. IMO, this section is still not
> complete to cover all possibilities.
>
> I see your point (partially). We need to add to the draft that the root of
> the DODAG in a MOP 5 operation should have route storing capabilities.
> What's really important, as the draft indicates is if the next hop has
> route storing capabilities or not. With this determined, if the next hop is
> a route storing node the sender can just transmit the packet right away. On
> the other hand if the next hop does not have this capability, a SRH needs
> to be attached.
>
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > In my work [*] I name this operation mode you refer, as node ability.
> The node will choose the mode depending on the ability metric. However,
> your draft is interesting because this pathology function will be within
> the routing RPL function and depending on OF.
> >
>
> Not sure here but for sure the proposed draft does not require a specific
> OF (if this is what you are implying). As long as there is a DODAG
> (constructed with any OF) the proposal is a small addition to the original
> storing and non-storing mode implementations.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -John
>
> > [*] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-roll-nap-00.txt
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Abdussalam Baryun
> > University of Glamorgan, UK
> > ======================
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > Roll@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>