Subject: Re: [Roll] [ROLL] RPL applicability statement for AMI networks

From: "Jetcheva, Jorjeta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:05:05 -0700

Hi Alvaro,

We are aware of the PAP2 work.  The AMI applicability draft does talk about the wide range of network densities that are possible (see Section 1.1 for example).  

Jorjeta

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro A. Cardenas [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:51 AM
> To: Popa, Daniel
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Jonathan Hui'
> Subject: RE: [Roll] [ROLL] RPL applicability statement for AMI networks
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I am talking about the main (only?) document of PAP2: NIST-IR 7761.
> There
> are many examples where the average number of neighbors can range
> between a
> dozen or so for rural deployments to thousands of nodes (depending on
> the
> transmission and reception power).
> 
> http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-
> sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Objective3/NISTI
> R7761.pdf
> 
> OpenSG is doing follow up work on PAP 2.
> 
> In our experience, even in the same AMI network deployment, the node
> connectivity can range from 1 neighbor to hundreds of neighbors.
> 
> Regards,
> Alvaro
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Popa, Daniel [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 5:12 PM
> To: Alvaro A. Cardenas
> Cc: [email-masked]; Jonathan Hui
> Subject: RE: [Roll] [ROLL] RPL applicability statement for AMI networks
> 
> Alvaro,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of
> > Alvaro A. Cardenas
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 6:44 PM
> > To: Jonathan Hui
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [Roll] [ROLL] RPL applicability statement for AMI
> networks
> >
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > > We are dealing with networks where nodes can have order hundreds of
> > neighbors (yes, a single node can have more neighbors than all nodes
> in
> > Tutornet and Motelab combined).  From our experiments, increasing the
> > min interval helps deal with increased
> > There has been a lot of work regarding the density of AMI networks in
> > the Priority Action Plan 2 (PAP 2) of the SGIP (and also the Open SG
> > networking groups) and several considerations for rural, suburban and
> > urban environments under different PHY layers and power used for
> > reception and transmission.  Is the draft taking into consideration
> > this
> > work and how the parameters will change depending on the specific
> > deployment?
> 
> Can you be more specific PLS and point us to some documents? A lot of
> work
> has been done within PAP2, SGIP or OpenSG
> on wireless PHY and MAC performance versus channel characteristics &
> density.
> 
> 
> > Regards,
> > Alvaro
> >
> > > density because it reduces the likelihood of collisions.  Of
> course,
> > the side effect of that is that the overall responsiveness of the
> > protocol becomes slower.  To find good routes within a reasonable
> time
> > scale, it also helps to increase the redundancy constant.  Note that
> a
> > value of 10 still allows significant suppression ratios when the
> > density is high.
> > >
> > > I recognize that the Trickle parameters will vary for different
> > deployment scenarios (sparse vs. dense, energy-constrained vs. mains-
> > powered, etc) and application requirements (capacity allocated to
> > control traffic, response time, etc.).  The draft does not currently
> > provide any discussion on that but should.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Hui
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Roll mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll