Subject: [Roll] RPL ticket #32: Asymmetric Links - last call

From: Richard Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:59:00 -0400

Last chance to weigh in on ticket 32, before it is dropped
due to lack of interest.

Note 1: This ticket is not concerned with asymmetric links in
general, but specifically with how path metrics are constructed
from asymmetric link metrics.

Note 2: The ticket is against the RPL draft, but this is really
an issue for the routing metrics draft.

The problem:

An asymmetric link metric can be used to create a number of
different path metrics, depending on how the upward and
downward link metrics are incorporated into the path metric.
The resulting path metric might reflect:
  - the metric for messages travelling upward
  - the metric for messages travelling downwards
  - average of the upward and downward metrics
  - best of the upward and downward metrics
  - worst of the upward and downward metrics
and so on.

Rather than try to encode all of the possible combining
functions, we can allow the inclusion of both the upward
and downward path metrics.

A useful example here is latency in a network where nodes
wake up to receive messages on a fixed schedule.  If nodes A
and B wake up to receive once a minute, with A waking up 5
seconds before B, then the A->B link has a latency of 5
seconds while B->A takes 55 seconds.  If A chooses B as a
parent when building a DODAG that uses latency as a metric,
what value should it use for the latency of the A<->B link?

Proposal:

Add a flag to Routing Metric/Constraint to indicate whether
the path metric represents the upward (flag = 0) or downward
(flag = 1) metric.  The flag would only be meaningful for
path metrics that are aggregations of potentially asymmetric
link metrics, such as latency or link quality,

A single DAG Metric Container would be allowed contain two
Routing Metric/Constraints of the same type, one containing
the upward path metric and the other having the downward.

Yes?  No?  
                             -Richard Kelsey

---

From: Yoav Ben-Yehezkel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:52:35 +0300

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Richard Kelsey
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Roll] RPL ticket #32: Asymmetric Links - last call

The problem:

Proposal:

Yes?  No?
                             -Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:04:12 +0200

> the upward path metric and the other having the downward.

Works for me (as authors of metric ID).

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:59:20 +0200

As I said earlier, I support using metrics for asymmetric links as long 
as we also include energy metrics.  I have sent earlier an email 
describing how.

Until then I don't think I agree using asymmetric link metrics.

So I am not sure how to consider this: + or minus 1.

Alex

---

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:18:14 +0100

I agree in principle. I'm not sure about the use of the words "down" and 
"up" (and no I don't want to start that debate again, thank you).

It's more a case of:

Link A <-> B:

Outgoing cost [A] -> B
Incoming cost A -> [B]
Outgoing cost A <- [B]
Incoming cost [A] <- B

where [] represents the subject of the cost measurement, i.e. the node 
holding the measurement.

Robert

Robert Cragie (Pacific Gas & Electric)

Gridmerge Ltd.
89 Greenfield Crescent,
Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK
+44 1924 910888
+1 415 513 0064
http://www.gridmerge.com <http://www.gridmerge.com/>