Re: [Roll] [roll] #162 (applicability-home-building): Use of basic RPL vs P2P RPL

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Thu, 13 November 2014 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317AB1AE2BE for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:32:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9-uYkt1VLlhB for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D4BA1AE2C0 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from roundcube.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.200]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id FBYJ1p0024K0fSy01BYJX1; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:32:18 +0100
Received: from t2001067c037001601499c2af8272b823.wireless.v6.meeting.ietf.org ([2001:67c:370:160:1499:c2af:8272:b823]) by roundcube.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:32:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:32:18 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: roll@ietf.org
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <071.552483167f70c2f1001ce26c2c4b6172@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <071.552483167f70c2f1001ce26c2c4b6172@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <7ebbf75794b437f21837aac3dceed489@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl (Pbx2aW8a4WMu2juUIjLs1gwSNYBKnC7Z)
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/xnATq0RCd_fAndvgcegeBP_qApA
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@tools.ietf.org, yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #162 (applicability-home-building): Use of basic RPL vs P2P RPL
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <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, 13 Nov 2014 23:32:22 -0000

Hi Yvonne,

We propose to leave the text unchanged.
In section 2.2.7 it is written that RPL is recommended for SS traffic.

Peter

roll issue tracker schreef op 2014-11-10 23:07:
> #162: Use of basic RPL vs P2P RPL
> 
>  Yvonne-Anne Pignolet:
>  In 2.2.7. the authors argue that P2P-RPL is required for P2P and P2MP
>  traffic in home and building automation LLNs instead of basic RPL.
>  I fully agree that P2P-RPL is used for P2P traffic, but for P2MP 
> traffic
>  it often makes sense to use basic RPL, also in home and building
>  automation LLNs. I suggest to include both P2P-RPL and basic RPL in 
> the
>  recommended protocol portfolio for home and building automation for 
> P2P
>  and P2MP traffic.
> 
>  2014-11-04 11:46 GMT+02:00 peter van der Stok:
>  I think we did in section 2.2.7 first phrase, where we mention that 
> RPL is
>  useful in the context of the SS paradigm where multiple servers send 
> data
>  to a central client which may be situated on a backbone.
>  We reserve P2P-RPL specifically for P2P and P2MP traffic.