On 05/10/10 01:51 AM, Anders Brandt wrote:
Where can I find the architectural definition of "an RPL instance"?
Is it in essence akin to a VLAN on an Ethernet?
It sounds like the same to me. With the difference that VLAN was created
to
simulate individual media over one wired infrastructure.
With individual DODAGIDs this is already possible in RPL (?)
I think the terminology and use is more confused than that.
The descriptions I've seen of the use of ROLL instances talk of
differentiating things for the low delay vs. high throughput packets.
This used to be called "ToS routing" back when OSPF supported it (I
think it was removed because nobody used it.) One could envision
something similar for ROLL using the Traffic Class field in the data
packets, and building a separate tree for each traffic class.
But Pascal referred to OSPFv3 instances, which is merely a local
identifier on one link to enable multiple OSPF ships in the night
sharing e.g., one Ethernet. Thus that instance ID does not span multiple
router hops. That has similar effect to having the OSPF control plane
run on separate VLANs on that Ethernet.
The industry also seems to be using terms like routing instances for the
cases when there are multiple set of interconnected (virtual) routers
that e.g., provide a service for different customers.
Thus ROLL could benefit from clearer terminology and staying away from
the term "instances"; if it is about Traffic Class then it makes sense
to call it that.
> If the rest of the Internet can live without this complex mechanism, why
> do
> we want to put that burden on much smaller nodes?
> My take is we should leave all this flow label stuff for the future if
> it
> appears that there really is a need for it.
I have no problem keeping the first RFC of a protocol as simple as
possible. If the protocol gets widely deployed one can consider
extending it later.
Erik
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
