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.