I think that it would be very beneficial to discuss this work in rtgwg. There may be some experience we can bring to bear.
I personally am not familiar with the different characteristics of 6lowpan compared to IP. Could you summarize or send a pointer? Regards, Alia On Friday, November 18, 2011, Ulrich Herberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Our draft basically describes a data forwarding mechanism, currently specified for 6lowpan (but it would be doable to add the same mechanism for IP as well). The idea is that a node first tries to forward a data packet along the route proposed by the routing protocol. However, if the topology has changed or a link has become very unstable, instead of dropping the packet, the node tries to find alternate paths towards the destination by applying a "depth-first search" in the network, possibly updating the route cost in the routing protocol. This allows for increasing the delivery ratio until the route has been corrected by the routing protocol. The advantage is that one requires fewer updates of the control plane, which may have negative effects on an already unstable topology (e.g. by flooding RREQ or LSAs). > We have done a number of simulations and also real tests with several hundred nodes at Fujitsu which showed a performance improvement. If you are interested in reading the draft, I would appreciate any kind of feedback. > > I-D > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cardenas-dff > > We have code both for the real testbed and for the simulator. Moreover, I am currently developing open source code. > > Some results in a paper (not yet available, but I will see if I can spin out a research report and upload that somewhere with public access) > Comparison of Data Forwarding Mechanisms for AMI Networks. Sandra Céspedes, Alvaro A. Cárdenas, Tadashige Iwao. 2012 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT). January 17-19, 2012. > > Best regards > Ulrich > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen < [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> In the FRR discussion at the mike today, I indicated that some work targeting FRR in LLNs might be worth looking at (and/or bring it into this wg). >> >> The draft I mentioned was this: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cardenas-dff-03 >> >> I'm not an author of this I-D, but I Cc Ulrich, who is, and who can probably say something much more intelligently than I can about it. >> >> Best, >> >> Thomas >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Heide Clausen >> http://www.thomasclausen.org/ >> >> "Payload (noun): wasted bandwidth between headers" (C.Lavenu 2011) >> > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
