Subject: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-00

From: Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:16:25 -0800

In the discussion just a few days ago on route poisoning, we felt the
need for a draft that discusses various guidelines for efficient
implementation of RPL. I just posted a beginning of a draft. Here is
the link:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-00.txt

Comments, discussions, and contributions welcome.

- om_p

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-00
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

A new version of I-D, draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Omprakash Gnawali and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:        draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations
Revision:        00
Title:           Recommendations for Efficient Implementation of RPL
Creation_date:   2011-02-21
WG ID:           Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 6

Abstract:
RPL is a flexible routing protocol applicable to a wide range of Low
Power and Lossy Networks.  To enable this wide applicability, RPL
provides many configuration options and gives implementers choices on
how to implement various components of RPL.  Drawing on our
experiences, we distill the design choices and configuration
parameters that lead to efficient RPL implementations and operations.

The IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:16:55 +0100

Thanks for that draft. I think that these are useful indications; still, I
think that some of the recommendations are actually fixing missing
specifications in the RPL draft, and should be part of RPL, not of an
additional draft.

About item 5 and 7, one might add the caveat that they may lead to (i) a
higher delay, which may not be acceptable in all applications (e.g. home
automation, light switch!) and (ii) possible loss of data if the node has
not enough capacity to buffer the data packets. Since RPL is supposed to run
on extremely constrained devices, the latter seems possible.

In item 5, it could be worth explaining why poisoning does not avoid loops,
maybe with an example. Moreover, one could add a section explaining how to
reduce the probability of loops when poisoning (e.g. by waiting some time
before processing any DIO messages).

I also think it could be worth giving some recommendations on how (or better
*when*) to send DAO and DAOACK messages (see my previous emails on that
matter).

Ulrich

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]
> wrote:

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

---

From: Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:50:37 -0800

Thanks for the comments. Some notes inline.

> on extremely constrained devices, the latter seems possible.

Loop detection and repair latency is going to depend on a lot of
factors. It is certainly possible to optimize for quick loop detection
and repair without poisoning but it might cost on some other aspects
of performance. For (7), I agree with what you are saying and I will
incorporate your suggestion in the next revision.

> before processing any DIO messages).

I can work on it for next revision.

> *when*) to send DAO and DAOACK messages (see my previous emails on that

I have seen your email. I think we need some experience before making
a recommendation on this issue. If someone has input on this topic
based on experiments/deployments etc., I am happy to incorporate the
suggestion.

- om_p

---

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:25:21 -0600 (CST)

Hi Omprakash

Could you also provide some guidelines regarding how to set the redundancy constant in trickle operation?

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Omprakash Gnawali" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ulrich Herberg" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ROLL WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 3:50:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Fwd: New Version Notification for	draft-gnawali-roll-rpl-recommendations-00

- om_p