Subject: Re: [Roll] mixture of storing and non-storing nodes

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:16:55 +0100

Hi Omprakash,

I agree with you that it is important for LLNs, but I already am working on
the solution in my draft NAP, which I believe can help and needs more
modification, I hope you can comment on the work or advise me how to make
it solve the problem.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-roll-nap-00.txt

Best Regards
Abdussalam

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear ROLL WG,

John Ko posted a draft a few days ago about how we might accommodate a
mixture of storing and non-storing nodes in a network more efficiently
than making one of them leaf nodes. Searching through the ROLL mail
archives, it was clear at the time that there was no use case for
having a network that has a mixture of storing and non-storing nodes.
I wonder if this is necessarily true if there are devices from
multiple vendors. At the time, it was also speculated that the mixture
could also introduce unknown problems and no one seems to have a
working solution. The draft describes one of the problems that could
occur if we try to form a multi-hop network with storing and
non-storing nodes. That is a concrete first step towards getting a
handle on the challenge of having nodes with different capabilities in
a network.

Your guidance on whether this is an important problem worth working on
or the work is heading in a wrong direction would help evolve or stop
the work.

Thanks.

- om_p

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:33:21 +0100

Hi Omprakash

>The draft describes one of the problems that could
occur if we try to form a multi-hop network with storing and
non-storing nodes. That is a concrete first step towards getting a
handle on the challenge of having nodes with different capabilities in
a network.
Please not that NAP draft is a first step to handle different capabilities,
you may missed it when I described the problem in june and posted the draft
in first august. However, I like that we share the importance of the
*mixture abilities* idea now and that we can work together to solve the
problem.

AB
-----
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Omprakash,
>
> I agree with you that it is important for LLNs, but I already am working
> on the solution in my draft NAP, which I believe can help and needs more

---

From: Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:58:44 -0700

> *mixture abilities* idea now and that we can work together to solve the

Did you get a sense from the WG that this is an important problem? We
can find many ways to extend and enhance every protocol but choose to
work on a subset that is most relevant to those who are building
devices and deploying networks.

Ko's draft talks about how to do multi-hop routing with storing and
non-storing nodes. Your draft talks about discovering if nodes are
able to participate due to various constraints. They seem different to
me but are not mutually exclusive.

- om_p

---

From: 정종수 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:39:40 +0000

Hi AB,

I also agree with Omprakash. Ko's draft describes a new RPL operation mode while your draft describes nodes' ability (functions and resources) advertisement/discovery in a given operation mode.

-Jongsoo

2012. 8. 22., 오전 3:58, Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]>
 작성:

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:53:54 +0200

Hi Jongsoo,

I already commented on the draft and supported it. There are always
different ways of solving an identified problem case. I mentioned that
the mix capabilities issue of both drafts was similar and solution
approach is different. IMO, efficient routings cannot be done without
good discovery,

AB
---------
On 8/22/12, 정종수 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi AB,
>
> I also agree with Omprakash. Ko's draft describes a new RPL operation mode
> while your draft describes nodes' ability (functions and resources)
> advertisement/discovery in a given operation mode.
>
> -Jongsoo
>