Re: [Roll] Opinion please
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Roll] Opinion please
I support option 1. The node has connectivity and we don't have to
complicate the code on all of the nodes.
geoff
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 08:24 +0100, JP Vasseur wrote:
> 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
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.