AGENDA - ROLL - IETF 97 11:10 - 12:10 Wednesday Morning session II Status of the working group ------------------------------------ 11:10 - 11:18 (8mins) --- Peter/Ines Use of rpl info draft - draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-09 ------- 11:18 - 11:26 (8 min.) -- Michael Richardson AODV-RPL draft - draft-satish-roll-aodv-rpl-02 ----------------- 11:26 - 11:41 (15 min.)- Charles Perkins DAO projection: draft-thubert-roll-dao-projection-03 ----------- 11:41 - 11:55 (14 min.)-- Pascal Thubert Mpl Forwarder select - draft-vanderstok-roll-mpl-forw-select-02 -11:55 - 12:08 (13 min.)-- Peter van der Stok Q&A ----------------------------------------------------------- 12:08 - 12:10 (2 min.) -- Peter/Ines Taking notes ------------ * Dominique Barthel Minutes -------e * [11:12] meeting starts * agenda bashing, blue sheets, etc [Chair] * [11:13] status of the working group (Chairs) * Peter: very few comments on WG LC. Please read and comment the drafts on the mailing lsit * Inès: shows status of drafts, WG and individual * Peter: several individual drafts will be presented/discussed dhere. We'll ask for WG adoption so that they can move forward * Inès : charter update. Please read (see mailing) and comment. * Peter: if nothing heard, will push changes to IESG. * [11:16] Use of rpl info draft - draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-09 -- Michael Richardson * discussion at 6man, RPI can stay across the edge of LLN, will not be processed. * read and comment * Peter: who has read the draft? xx hands [xxx] can you explain why decision RPI could be left in place? [Michael] originally, packet with RPI was to be dropped. Intended to contain trafic. Now, because we are not required to remove the header, there are situations where we can avoid IP-in-IP encapsulation. [Pascal] new 6loRH encoding might change things a little bit. Still discussions at 6man. Update of 2460 will not change things drmatically. Also, discussion on when to insert headers is somewjhat different from when to remove headers. RH3, when compressed with 6loRH, .... RPI header come first, could be cut-off [Michael] could happen. Doc says do RPI, not IP-in-IP, for upward path. Decision to remove RPI is at the root, which is more flexible/capable/... [Michael] still breaks authentification header. But confident we can send them out to the Internet and not break the architecture. [Pascal] to the fact that it breaks AH, .... [Micahel] agree that rules for remove=ing header are weak. We should write a separate document. Decidable by the 6LBR independantly of any other decision [Pascal] could be written in here. recommendation would be : 6loRH, strip it out. [Michael] feel this would drag this document into 6man discussion. Let's write this is separate document and wait for 2460bis to settle. [xxx] don't know what's going to happen at 6man. [Michael] think we can easily write it as a separate document. No effect on the little devices. Peter: please read the doc and comment on the mailing list. * [11:30] AODV-RPL draft - draft-satish-roll-aodv-rpl-02 -- Charles Perkins * extension to P2P-RPL using AODV * describes recent changes to draft * pairing on Route Request DODAG instance and Route Reply DODAG instnace by odd/even instance IDs * this saves Destination IP address in RREP message * implementation on Contiki/Cooja * expect demo at next IETF [Ravishankar] what model for Contiki/Cooja simulation? [] * chairs: who read the drat? 5 hands. Who wants to review? 2 * [11:39] DAO projection: draft-thubert-roll-dao-projection-03 -- Pascal Thubert * we can turn RPL into centrally controlled algorithm, e.g. for factory networks. * establish special paths with "garanteed" capabilities. E.g. for 6TiSCH. * PCE tells root with route to install. * another benefit is to compress source routed path. Turn strict source routing into loose source routing. Since done centrally, careful decisions. [Ravishankar] cost of computation? [Pascal] in Non Storing Mode, topology is built. Unchanged. Just compressing the expression of the path in Source routing. * version 2 of this draft introduced Storing Mode variation. But additional protocol elements needed. In this draft or another draft? * allow to build transversal pathes. * new on -03: not much, some cleanup [Ravishankar] discussion years ago on mailing list about mixed mode. Does this draft allow it? [Pascal] in a controlled way. Risk of storing mode is when nodes run out of memory. There has been discussions on refusing DAOs. Hard to make the distributed approach to this. Centralized approach works. PCE knows amount of state, lifetime, etc. Pascal: many more slides provided to illustrate how this works Peter: who has read? 6 who is willing to review? 4 who thinks the WG should work on this? 6 <<>>> * [11:52] Mpl Forwarder select - draft-vanderstok-roll-mpl-forw-select-02 -- Peter van der Stok * problem is selecting a few forwarder of nulticast traffic, for reliability. * Peter explains algorithm, see slides * goes through examples, using diagrams * Peter: interest in the WG in this work? [Charlie Perkins] this is great idea. See also work at MANET. Connected Dominating Set. [Charlie] your picture show regular arrays. Might be misleading. [Peter] agreed. Much more work to be conducted. [Charlie] is this meant for stably establisehd networks? [Michael] please explain how far the nodes can hear one another on theses disgrams. [Peter] on slide 11, radius of 3 lattice edges. [Michael] does this live on top of MPL? [Peter] on top of Trickle. [Michael] at BIER, they might be interested in this. [Peter] discussed it with Carsten. [Pascal] interested in this. Variation on MultiPoint Relays of OLSR. However, on variable radio conditions and bsttery limited devices, you might drain device batteries. How about a rotation mechanism so that ndoes take turns? [Peter] excellent idea. Was thinking of moving forwarders around to get further local optiisation Inès: who has read? 2 * [12:07] Q&A -- Peter/Ines * any question? on drafts? on charter? * no question * [12:07] meeting closed