Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology

Thanks for your interests.

I also wonder the method for mixing storing and non-storing modes that we described in the draft is feasible or not.
We suggested a new MOP that requires a few minor changes from existing storing mode and non-storing mode.

Thanks.
-Jongsoo

On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Gillmore, Matthew <Matthew.Gillmore@itron.com> wrote:

> 
> I agree with Carsten,  a solution for a hybrid of storing mode and non-storing mode is very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Gillmore
> Strategic Standards Architect, Office of the CTO
> Mobile: +1.517.745.7350
> Knowledge to Shape Your Future
>       
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roll [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:36 PM
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> Cc: Ines Robles; draft-ko-roll-mix-network-pathology@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Roll] interest in mixed network topology
> 
> Well,
> 
>> The metering people (AMI) specified storing mode in the applicability 
>> statement.  Traffic distance doesn't matter as it's almost all p2mp.
> 
> It's easy to "leave the door open" in an applicability statement.
> (BTW, is that document alive?  I haven't been paying attention.)
> 
> I would be more interested in hearing about people who actually build things that way.
> 
>> I understand your statement to be disinterest in new partial storing modes.
> 
> No, I find the problem intriguing.  It just seems to me that storing mode isn't actually being used outside research.
> If a hybrid mode could make the introduction of storing nodes a more useful proposition, that would be an interesting result of this work.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll