The Direction Field in Routing Metric/Constraint Objects Used in RPL draft-goyal-roll-metrics-direction-00 Mukul Goyal University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Universidade do Minho A Framework for Multi-Class Based Multicast Routing TNC 2002 Maria João Nicolau, António Costa, Alexandre Santos {joao, costa,
Advertisements

Identifying Defunct DAGs in RPL draft-goyal-roll-defunct-dags-00 Mukul Goyal University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.
IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low- Power and Lossy Networks Speaker : Chih-Ching Chen Advisor : Dr. Ho-Ting Wu 2014/3/24 1.
1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.
Creating Custom Reports. 2 Design and create a custom report You can easily create custom reports based on a table or query. There are seven sections.
A Compression Format for RPL Control Messages draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression-00 Mukul Goyal University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.
Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes in Low Power and Lossy Networks draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-04 Mukul Goyal University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.
IP Protocol. The Internet Protocol (IP) is a network-layer (Layer 3) protocol that contains addressing information and some control information that enables.
Views Chapter 12. What Are Views? A virtual table that comprises the fields of one or more tables in the database It is a virtual table since it does.
Slide #1IETF 77 – Roll WG – March 2010 ROLL RPL IETF 77 status draft-ietf-roll-rpl Tim Winter Pascal Thubert Design Team.
IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (IIT) Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Fred Baker
IETF-76, Hiroshima, Nov 2009 ROLL Working Group Meeting IETF-76, Nov 2009, Hiroshima Routing Metrics used for Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy Networks.
Signaling & Routing Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-availability-03 draft-long-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-02.
CSIS 4823 Data Communications Networking – IPv6
1 IP Forwarding Relates to Lab 3. Covers the principles of end-to-end datagram delivery in IP networks.
Routing Protocol Evaluation David Holmer
1 CMPT 471 Networking II IGMP (IPv4) and MLD (IPv6) © Janice Regan,
Guide to State Transition Diagram. 2 Contents  What is state transition diagram?  When is state transition diagram used?  What are state transition.
Chapter 4 Network Layer Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach 6 th edition Jim Kurose, Keith Ross Addison-Wesley March 2012 A note on the use of these.
CS4550 Computer Networks II IP : internet protocol, part 2 : packet formats, routing, routing tables, ICMP read feit chapter 6.
ZTE CORPORATION Extensions of BRPC and PCEP to Support Inter- AS Bidirectional LSP Path Computation draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-00 Xuerong.
1 Multi Topology Routing for OSPFv3 (draft-mirtorabi-mt-ospfv3-00.txt) Sina Mirtorabi
Slide #1IETF 82 – ROLL WG – November 2011 RPL adaptation for asymmetrical links IETF 82 status draft-thubert-roll-asymlink Pascal Thubert.
Doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0 SubmissionMukul Goyal, U Wisconsin MilwaukeeSlide 1 Impact of IEEE n Operation On IEEE Performance Notice: This.
ROLL Working Group Meeting IETF-81, Quebec City July 2011 Online Agenda and Slides at: bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi Co-chairs:
RPL:IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks Speaker: Chung-Yi Chao Advisor: Dr. Kai-Wei Ke 2015/10/08 1.
IETF79 Nov 2010 Routing metrics ID -11 draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-11 JP Mijeon Kris.
High-Speed Policy-Based Packet Forwarding Using Efficient Multi-dimensional Range Matching Lakshman and Stiliadis ACM SIGCOMM 98.
ROLL RPL Security IETF 77 status
draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl
RSVP-TE Extensions to Establish Associated Bidirectional LSP MPLS/CCAMP WG, IETF 81th, Quebec draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01 Fei.
6LoWPAN Ad Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing Introduction Speaker: Wang Song-Ferng Advisor: Dr. Ho-Ting Wu Date: 2014/03/31.
Lecture 24: Networks — Introduction Professor Randy H. Katz.
November 2006IETF TRILL WG1 TRILL Working Group draft-gai-perlman-trill-encap-00.txt as modified by Radia Ed Bowen, IBM Dinesh Dutt, Cisco Silvano Gai,
The Semantic IoT Amr El Mougy Slim Abdennadher Ghada Fakhry.
IP Fragmentation. Network layer transport segment from sending to receiving host on sending side encapsulates segments into datagrams on rcving side,
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. BSCI v3.0—8-1 Implementing IPv6 Defining IPv6 Addressing.
1 draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt CCAMP – IETF 84 – Vancouver July - August 2012 Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Clarence Filsfils  Cisco Systems Kenji.
GMPLS extensions to communicate latency as a Traffic Engineering performance metric draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt.
One-pass structure definition must occur before any uses (that is, uses can have only backward references to definitions) examples: macro definition before.
Mukul Goyal University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Internet of Things Amr El Mougy Alaa Gohar.
Wireless Sensor Networks 6. WSN Routing
IP - The Internet Protocol
802.11s Proposal - Joint SEE-Mesh/Wi-Mesh Proposal to TGs
OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
Forwarding and Routing IP Packets
Bundle Protocol Specification
Standards Basics.
Template library tool and Kestrel training
IP - The Internet Protocol
PLR Designation in RSVP-TE FRR
Microsoft Office Access 2003
Temporally-Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA)
IP - The Internet Protocol
Guide to TCP/IP Fourth Edition
OSPF & ISIS Flooding Reduction
DoDAF 2.x Meta Model (DM2) Conceptual Level
IP - The Internet Protocol
Mesh QoS: Multiple Simultaneous Routes
This allows me to insert data for specified fields and not for other fields in the structure.
Preceptor Introduction to CORE ELMS
IP - The Internet Protocol
Submission Title: Improving Packet Energy Efficiency Using ULP Mode
Impact of IEEE n Operation On IEEE Performance
Impact of IEEE n Operation On IEEE Performance
IPv4 Addressing By, Ishivinder Singh( ) Sharan Patil ( )
IP - The Internet Protocol
Extended BFD draft-mirmin-bfd-extended
Editors: Bala’zs Varga, Jouni Korhonen
Presentation transcript:

The Direction Field in Routing Metric/Constraint Objects Used in RPL draft-goyal-roll-metrics-direction-00 Mukul Goyal University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

Introduction Asymmetric links are a common observation in LLNs. Many link-level routing metrics have a directional aspect. Not always desirable to calculate a link-level metric in bidirectional manner. For example, – if a DAG is built for low latency communication to the DAG root, the link latency must be measured in Up direction – if a temporary DAG is being constructed to discover a point-to-point route towards a destination, the routing metric must be measured in Down direction. Useful to specify the directional aspect within the routing metric/constraint.

The Direction Field This document defines a Direction field inside the Routing Metric/Constraint object header in two previously reserved bits. The modified Routing Metric/Constraint object header is backward compatible with its definition in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics].I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics

The Direction Field The Direction field is a 2-bit field that indicates the direction associated with the routing metric/constraint: – D = 0x00: undefined – D = 0x01: Up – D = 0x02: Down – D = 0x03: Bidirectional. If the D field has value 0x00, the direction associated with the routing metric/constraint is undefined as in [I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics].I-D.ietf-roll-routing-metrics A value 0x00 for the D field may be suitable for node-level routing metrics/constraints.

Rules associated with D field A routing metric/constraint object MUST be measured/evaluated in accordance with its D field value if defined. In case, an RPL node can not measure/evaluate the routing metric/constraint object in the specified direction, the following rules MUST be applied: – If the object is a recorded metric, i.e., has C=0 and R=1 fields, the RPL node MUST set the P flag inside the object, thereby indicating the partial nature of the recorded metric. – If the object is an aggregated metric, i.e., has C=0 and R=0 fields, the RPL node MUST drop the DIO containing the object. – If the object is a mandatory constraint, i.e., has C=1 and O=0 fields, the RPL node MUST drop the DIO containing the object. – If the object is an optional constraint, i.e., has C=1 and O=1 fields, the RPL node MAY drop the DIO containing the object or it MAY continue processing rest of the DIO ignoring this object.