Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?

To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert at cisco.com>, roll ROLL <roll at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
From: Maxence Dalmais <maxence.dalmais at insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:25:49 +0100
Delivered-to: roll at core3.amsl.com
In-reply-to: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5DAAB837 at XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5DAAB837 at XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>

Hi Pascal,

the idea seems good to me but I got a question :
-How nodes act during the sequence spreading ?
I mean : Does a node which acted as a router and currently does not advertise as it continue to route during the T time ?
Moreover, does the fact to change his status of router or not does not increase packets lost or the number of sent ICMP Destination Unreachable packet ?

Maxence.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
  - From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)

References:
- [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
  - From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)

Prev by Date: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
Next by Date: Re: [Roll] Closing on Ticket #10
Previous by thread: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
Next by thread: Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [Roll] do we need a dominating set?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.