[Roll] [roll] #92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm

"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 05 April 2012 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C42521F86A8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1LQmeNZONuv for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D053421F8698 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 04:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1SFkQW-0002k2-3E; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:00:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software
To: mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:00:28 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/92
Message-ID: <055.4f67aded0ee3d83f8b18258686aba080@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 92
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mukul@UWM.EDU, jpv@cisco.com, roll@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] [roll] #92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Reply-To: 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: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:00:47 -0000

#92: Is it possible to make P2P-RPL independent of trickle algorithm


 Another point that has been discussed today during the ROLL meeting, is
 that some people may find other mechanisms than trickle more efficient to
 flood the RDO.
 Could we let the door opened to other flooding optimization mechanism, or
 explicitly say that the trickle mechanism MUST be used ?

 I think inherent dependence on the trickle mechanism is apparent because
 of the fact that the route discovery takes place by forming a temporary
 DAG. DAG creation (or DIO generation) depends on trickle algorithm. So,
 P2P-RPL also depends on trickle algorithm. P2P-RPL being an extension of
 core RPL, I dont think there is a way to separate P2P-RPL from trickle

 Reporter:  jpv@…                  |      Owner:  mukul@…
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |  Milestone:
Component:  p2p-rpl                |    Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |   Keywords:

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/92>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>