Re: [Roll] Opinion please

["Julien Abeille (jabeille)" <jabeille at cisco.com>]

Hi JP,

I am for option 1. As you say OF mismatch is a configuration problem,
joining as a leaf works fine. I am also not too keen having extra code
on a sensor just because the admin did not do a rather simple task
properly.

Best,
Julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roll-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
> Sent: jeudi 5 novembre 2009 08:25
> To: roll WG
> Subject: [Roll] Opinion please
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> /co-chair hat off/
> 
> We would welcome your opinion on the following issue:
> 
> Suppose that a DAG is formed that support OFx. A new node 
> willing to join the DAG does not support OFx but OFy. Note 
> that by OF we actually mean the Objective function and the metric.
> 
> We have two options here.
> 
> Option 1: The node simply joins the DAG as a leaf. In order 
> words, the node has connectivity since it joins the DAG but 
> will not act as a router for others since it does not 
> understand the OF. Parent selection could be a simply a "random".
> 
> Option 2: The node joins the DAG and falls back to the 
> "default" OCP.  
>  From there is prolongs the DAG but with OF0 (of course 
> inconsistent metrics are not added). This also means that 
> everynode MUST implement OF0 and that the network may 
> compromise nodes with different OF at some point. Several 
> options even more complex have been discussed where one could 
> use common denominator to get as close as possible to the 
> desired OF, allow a node not to be so "altruistic", ...
> 
> My personal view is that OF management can quick get fairly 
> complex and hard to manage. Option 1 is extremely simple and 
> easy to manage.  
> If a node is mis-configured (does not support the OF of the 
> DAG) it can join it as a leaf in order to have connectivity 
> and send an alarm to fix its configuration. We now just need 
> to specify OF in some document and this is it.
> 
> Several of you mentioned that they were leaning toward option 
> 1, but could you please express your opinion, we would like 
> to have it solved for the next revision next week.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>