Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL
C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com> Thu, 29 March 2012 07:00 UTC
Return-Path: <c.chauvenet@watteco.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 6CDFC21E80DD for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 eEooz9QWr8p3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE2821E80D3 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail160-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.253) by VA3EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.7.40.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:21 +0000
Received: from mail160-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail160-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CDB3E08C7; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -44
X-BigFish: VPS-44(zz9371Ic89bh542M1dbaL1432N1418M98dKzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dh84d07hz2dh2a8h668h839hd25h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.248.181; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:AMXPRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received: from mail160-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail160-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1333004417499222_23555; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS008.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.252]) by mail160-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6194A011E; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AMXPRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.248.181) by VA3EHSMHS008.bigfish.com (10.7.99.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:15 +0000
Received: from AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.137]) by AMXPRD0510HT004.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.57.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0135.002; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:13 +0000
From: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com>
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL
Thread-Index: AQHNDPq8wWOP5S/ZxEWhSdXuiX6uUJZ/4EQAgAACFYCAAAN2AIAAcR4AgAB6z4CAAAd6AA==
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:13 +0000
Message-ID: <4DF54090-A30F-47D5-A510-D72253B9F265@watteco.com>
References: <650476877.1722531.1332952142290.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu> <71B69BDB-1701-4813-8B30-1873233D43B0@watteco.com> <CAK=bVC9Lwn7qj_y7tukNSJHaizXZzUe6yWGQ8qSu+mYuy59KAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC9Lwn7qj_y7tukNSJHaizXZzUe6yWGQ8qSu+mYuy59KAw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.3.4.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <43628553C040164DA2573E13E85E5BF3@eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: watteco.com
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:00:29 -0000
Ulrich, Le 29 mars 2012 à 08:33, Ulrich Herberg a écrit : > Cédric, > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:13 AM, C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> Le 28 mars 2012 à 18:29, Mukul Goyal a écrit : >> >> Okay, but I think that should be explicitly mentioned in the use case >> >> >> As discussed today during the meeting, numbers need to be placed given a >> particular context. >> So, if we put explicitly "4-5 hops" in the requirements, this has to be in >> regards to the total number of nodes, the topology, the technology used, the >> environment, and other numerous parameters that could justify this "4-5" >> value for a particular case. > > I am aware that the precise number of hops depends on a number of > things. However, I think it should be spelled out that the draft has > limitations in terms of scope and is not always applicable in general > LLNs of thousands of nodes (at least that's what I infer from the talk > yesterday). > > >> For instance, if you consider 15.4 in the sub Ghz band, 15.4 in the 2.4 Ghz >> band or PLC technology where RPL applies, the 4-5 hops physical distance >> vary from at least one or two order of magnitude. > > I doubt that the hop distance varies by two orders of magnitude, i.e. > up to 500 hops (even one seems a lot). I was thinking about 1 Vs 10, and this may be more if you compare RF 2.4 VS PLC across multiple floors in a building. > >> So people working over the 2.4 Ghz may use the 4-5 hops boundary, whereas >> people running over sub Ghz may be happy within a single hop boundary. > > Sure, I never doubted that depending on the link layer / the topology > / the traffic patterns etc there are differences in scope. I just > request to add one sentence to make it clear to the reader what the > applicability of the draft is. > >> >> There is a section in the P2P draft that is quite generic, so applicable to >> most of the use case, >> and shed some light on the tradeoff regarding using >> or not the P2P extension, and limit the scope of the flooding : >> >> A network designer may take into consideration both the benefits >> (potentially better routes; >> no need to maintain routes proactively) and costs (control messages >> generated during the route discovery process) when using P2P-RPL. >> >> >> We may expand this sentence to be more precise on the flooding region. >> >> What do you think ? > > That can be done. But I also think that the Use Cases section should > be more specific in which scenarios the draft can be used. > > >> >> I think numbers are always dangerous in documents that need to be frozen at >> some point. > > I do not insist on fixed numbers, I am aware that the number 4 or 5 > was just named as example. But it was clear from them that the draft > is limited to small-size networks (or at least close peers in a larger > network). I don't say that this is a problem, but just that it should > be spelled out in the draft. Sure, this would be useful to precise the scope. > > Best regards > Ulrich Cédric. > >> But I agree that they are very relevant to share, when you want to leverage >> on other experiments. >> Putting fixed numbers in protocols that target very wide scope and emerging >> applications is like asking to a commercial guy to put a fixed price on a >> product for the 20 years to come ! >> >> Just my 2 cts >> >> Cédric. >> >> section (or somewhere else). >> >> Sure. I will add text to that effect. Note that the tradeoff is not >> straightforward: even when the P2P-RPL routes are not much shorter than >> routes along a global DAG, they would still avoid traffic concentration >> around the root. >> >> Thanks >> Mukul >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name> >> To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu> >> Cc: "roll WG" <roll@ietf.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:16:39 AM >> Subject: Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL >> >> Mukul, >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> wrote: >> >> >> I don't see anywhere in this section that the draft is only limited to >> >> 4-5 hops, as mentioned today. If the protocol can run in larger networks but >> >> only for routers in maximum hop distance of 4-5, that should be spelled out >> >> (together with a warning that TTL of the control messages has to be set to >> >> 4-5 to avoid network wide flooding). >> >> >> P2P-RPL can certainly discover routes of any hop length, just that its >> >> application would be most useful when the target is within 4-5 hops. If the >> >> target is further out, the route along a global DAG might be almost as good. >> >> This ofcourse depends on network topology and routing metrics in use etc. >> >> >> Okay, but I think that should be explicitly mentioned in the use case >> section (or somewhere else). >> >> Regards >> Ulrich >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >> >> >
- [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL C Chauvenet
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL C Chauvenet
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] Scalability of P2P-RPL Mukul Goyal