[Roll] Fwd: Revisiting the Trickle Algorithm

[Omprakash Gnawali <[e-mail]>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Omprakash Gnawali <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Revisiting the Trickle Algorithm
To: badis DJAMAA <[e-mail]>
Cc: ROLL WG <[e-mail]>, "Thomas Heide Clausen (work)"
<[e-mail]>, Philip Levis <[e-mail]>, JeongGil
Ko <[e-mail]>, JeongGil Ko <[e-mail]>, Jonathan
Hui <[e-mail]>, Ines Robles <[e-mail]>,
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>


It is a good idea to explore how to make Trickle work better.

Could you discuss the tradeoffs due to the proposed modification? Are
there some scenarios that will be worse off due to the changes?

Did you consider minor variations to your scheme - e.g., rather than
just the first interval starting at 0, how about the first n intervals
starting at 0 rather than I/2?

It will be useful to poll the community what they use for Imin and do
experiments with similar Imin.

- om_p


On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:51 AM, badis DJAMAA <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> We have been working with Trickle for more than two years. A 4-page document
> available here https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/9033  shows
> that by a simple modification to Trickle, a great decrease in the
> propagation time can be achieved without affecting Trickle's scalability.
>
> The results are backed by extensive simulations and large-scale testbed
> experiments. In-depth explanation along with more extensive results are
> under analysis to be announced very soon.
>
> In a nutshell the modification recommends to change step 2, section 4.2. of
> RFC6206 as follows
>
> Old:
>
>  2.  When an interval begins, Trickle resets c to 0 and sets t to a
>        random point in the interval, taken from the range [I/2, I), that
>        is, values greater than or equal to I/2 and less than I.  The
>        interval ends at I.
>
> New:
>
>  2.  When an interval begins, Trickle resets c to 0 and sets t to a
>        random point in the interval, taken from the range:
>
>        o   [0, Imin) if the interval began as result of step 6
>          (because of an inconsistency or external events).
>
>    o   [I/2, I), otherwise(the interval began because of step 1 or step 5)
>
> The rationale behind this modification is briefly explained here
> https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/9033
>
> any comment is warmly welcomed
>
> All the best
> badis