IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02

"Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> Fri, 05 December 2008 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <roll-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-roll-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0421128C1BD; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:49:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392E528C1BD for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:49:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NHDsYg-RKCYh for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E519F28C1BC for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c29so73128ika.5 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:49:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ZvpkMk7Z+u2kcQ8UXVxCWWMx+/YpaSLEL9FCUAiryec=; b=ZpGfCDXhYCsrVJqJotc2q/QjDGTju+T3UcB3oJheoirNMZY/oCH39gnGNIM08GSoVa aJ1kUEnHZivRt1EeeDFojW2CV6OkGfqtK0m1EruBjUxlxEX8r2Llid5KnMgModlZZ2Gb PvN+dQvxs+AwRJk2mE4MViT+UpGmLNEysU8qA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=b4sEnMqAizhwgOWfnT4EAKd2uo9ELAKuOLtB6gvfMoZRShvXE0EVij5RZPOZnLYKDX 6QppxsPfjyKRTzSpfF9WS6eRnOsGY/fOMa+lvqehQM12EzIT339SxcUNyEaHwpPj/AQn 9hmhxnV6wNMvCIZVFvwUzePSqZ58H/iGB2cNU=
Received: by 10.210.66.13 with SMTP id o13mr136952eba.105.1228495791040; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.210.126.11 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <374005f30812050849refe8122i63629f469f8ba7c8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:49:50 -0500
From: Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>, arsalan@eecs.berkeley.edu
In-Reply-To: <7C1A2E64-C1B0-472E-B354-77F290BBC80D@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <7C1A2E64-C1B0-472E-B354-77F290BBC80D@cisco.com>
Cc: charliep@computer.org, roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: roll-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: roll-bounces@ietf.org

I've reviewed draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survery. I have a few comments and nits.

In the Introduction, it would be great if LLN constraints and
requirements that other networks do not poses were listed/summarized
before reference to the routing-req docs. The existing text left me
guessing about what exactly was different.

I would suggest rephrasing the DYMO discussion related to hopcount in
Section 3. Perhaps stating that "distance" is the metric in DYMO, and
that hopcount is the minimum distance allowed.

In Section 4.2, the motivation provided is the possibly large network
size (250-millions) and deep network (20 hops). Network size and
routing information size do not have a direct connection when
hierarchical addressing is used. Perhaps this motivation could be
removed and simply the last sentence kept. Given this change maybe the
suitability metric should become routing table size, instead of table
scalability.

Based on the suitability table and description contained in the ROLL
survey document, I have updated the DYMO (v16) draft .  First, I added
text to indicate that distance may be influenced at multiple points in
the processing of RM. This changes should allow link and node metrics
to influence distance before and after RM processing. Secondly, I have
made forwarding of RERR optional (through strongly suggested). This
should allow a smart implementation (e.g. using an "active" precursor
list) to limit the propagation of RERR messages. Thank you for
pointing out these minor issues in DYMO.

If you have any other suggestions for the DYMO specification that you
feel would make it better fit to suit ROLL requirements, please let me
know.

Thanks.
Ian Chakeres

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:36 AM, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
> Dear WG,
> draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-02 is now fully stable, the last revision
> has been published after the ROLL Interim meeting in October and all
> comments received so far had been addressed.
> This emails start a 2-week Working Group Last Call that will end on December
> 5 at noon ET.
> Please send your comments to the authors and on the mailing list.
> Thanks.
> JP.
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email