> We are having an interesting chat on MANET and ROLL where the differences
> (and core similarities) between BABEL and RPL are elaborated.
There are, however, a number of issues with RPL that make it difficult to
use in the Homenet or the MANET space. Note that what I say below applies
to RFCs 6550 and 6552, which is not necessarily what any particular RPL
vendor ships.
- the RPL spec is incomplete and relies on vendor magic (for example,
there's no link sensing or bidirectional reachability detection in the
spec);
- RPL is a large protocol, with many options, and two implementations of
RPL from different vendors will not necessarily interoperate (for
example, RPL includes support for no less than three distinct forwarding
mechanisms -- and perhaps a fourth one, I'm not sure);
- notwithstanding the omissions above, the RPL spec is a 157 page long
monster (compare this to the 45 pages of Babel, of which only 20 are
normative). I'm supposed to be good at reading this sort of stuff,
and I'm finding it extremely difficult to work out what is the
structure of RFC 6552 -- after two days of work on it, I'm still
grepping.
I am also not entirely convinced that the mechanisms in RFC 6552 are correct
(I think I see a number of race conditions), but I don't understand the
answers that I'm getting from the RPL specialists.
In addition to RFC 6552 and the thread that's being crossposted between
MANET and ROLL, you may want to look at:
https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00597036/document
Figure 3 on page 14 is my new favourite.
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
