Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #12: DIS

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:58:44 -0000

#12: DIS
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…               |        Owner:  wintert@…      
     Type:  defect              |       Status:  closed         
 Priority:  trivial             |    Milestone:                 
Component:  rpl                 |      Version:                 
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |   Resolution:  fixed          
 Keywords:                      |  
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Changes (by jpv@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 The use of Trickle serves to randomize the response to DIS messages.
   For -05, RPL text is updated to clarify:

   o  When a node receives a multicast DIS message, it MUST reset the
      trickle timer to the minimum value.

   o  When a node receives a unicast DIS message, it MUST unicast a DIO
      message in response, and include the DAG Configuration Object.  In
      this case the node SHOULD NOT reset the trickle timer.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:37:50 +0100

Hello all,

Where there is a high density of nodes/routers, we want to be more selective as to who shall respond to a multicast DIS.
DIS currently has no message body. Would it be possible to have the message body indicate a range of ranks and a maximal link cost for nodes requested to respond ? (default would be a catch all).
It's much better to have to send a few selective DIS'es, lowering the requirements as needed, rather than have all neighbors respond irrespective of their quality to becoming a parent/sibling.
And I guess the magic sentence is : there are sensor networks in the field, with millions of devices deployed, that do it today and need it in the future.
Your comments ?
Thanks

Dominique

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de roll issue tracker
Envoyé : jeudi 3 décembre 2009 15:59
À : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Roll] [roll] #12: DIS

#12: DIS
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
--------------------------------+----
 Reporter:  jpv@...               |        Owner:  wintert@...      
     Type:  defect              |       Status:  closed         
 Priority:  trivial             |    Milestone:                 
Component:  rpl                 |      Version:                 
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |   Resolution:  fixed          
 Keywords:                      |  
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
--------------------------------+----
Changes (by jpv@...):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:02:45 -0600

Hey Dominique,

+1 for me.  I like it. 

<[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
12/09/2009 07:40 AM

To
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
Re: [Roll] [roll] #12: DIS

Hello all,

Where there is a high density of nodes/routers, we want to be more 
selective as to who shall respond to a multicast DIS.
DIS currently has no message body. Would it be possible to have the 
message body indicate a range of ranks and a maximal link cost for nodes 
requested to respond ? (default would be a catch all).
It's much better to have to send a few selective DIS'es, lowering the 
requirements as needed, rather than have all neighbors respond 
irrespective of their quality to becoming a parent/sibling.
And I guess the magic sentence is : there are sensor networks in the 
field, with millions of devices deployed, that do it today and need it in 
the future.
Your comments ?
Thanks

Dominique

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de 
roll issue tracker
Envoyé : jeudi 3 décembre 2009 15:59
À : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Roll] [roll] #12: DIS

#12: DIS

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:05:21 -0800

On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:37 AM, <[email-masked]> <[email-masked] 
 > wrote:

> message body indicate a range of ranks and a maximal link cost for  
> nodes requested to respond ? (default would be a catch all).
> It's much better to have to send a few selective DIS'es, lowering  
> the requirements as needed, rather than have all neighbors respond  
> field, with millions of devices deployed, that do it today and need  
> it in the future.

Is the concern subselecting who might answer a DIS, reducing the  
number of potential replies, or both?  Barring very aberrant  
topologies, the Ranks of neighbors are unlikely to be from a large  
range. This is a proposed mechanism: what is its goal?

Phil