Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing?
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 07 March 2014 12:37 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 1BE591A0262 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:37:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.019
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no
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 B7lZhwJ7u-C3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E601A01C9 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 04:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D4D2002B for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:55:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 563A3647C9; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:37:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C7463B88 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:37:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMxvJtKqhSMpFE5pP42h-Dt3_zCLnJ8WWochjjg7TOCO8kMQVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMxvJtKqhSMpFE5pP42h-Dt3_zCLnJ8WWochjjg7TOCO8kMQVg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 07:37:14 -0500
Message-ID: <19299.1394195834@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/yOOC3V39tOOZaSQMuFdr8UFD3K8
Subject: Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing?
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: 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: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:37:22 -0000
Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se> wrote: > We have designed an opportunistic extension of RPL, where the basic idea is to > exploit all links of the DODAG rather than the tree defined by links to > preferred parents. We do this using anycast: transmissions are intended either > (upwards) to any parent or (downwards) to any child having the destination > below in the DODAG. This is very interesting. > We have a working prototype [1] in Contiki that we evaluated thoroughly in a > 135-node testbed [2]. In a 4-min packet interval data collection, we increase > the reliability of RPL from 97.4 to 99.5%, while halving the latency (below > 0.5s) and radio duty cycle (below 0.5%). > If there is interest, we can come up with a simplified version of the design > presented in the paper, and propose a way to integrate it in RPL through only a > few minor additions. To be more specific, the simplified version would use the > existing RPL routing tables rather than Bloom filters, and would be MAC-layer > agnostic (the only assumption being that the MAC layer supports > anycast). I'm not familliar with the concept of anycast at layer-2. I think that ethernet supports this, but that actually one would have the multicast bit set. I think that you'd have to do the same thing on 802.11. I guess that 15.4 has a specific support for this, or is just a choice of a particular unicast mac? -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
- [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Michael Richardson
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Ines Robles
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Gillmore, Matthew
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Gillmore, Matthew
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Don Sturek
- Re: [Roll] Interest in opportunistic routing? Simon Duquennoy