draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-06.txt		draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07.txt
	Networking Working Group P. Levis		Networking Working Group P. Levis
	Internet-Draft Stanford University		Internet-Draft Stanford University
	Intended status: Informational A. Tavakoli		Intended status: Informational A. Tavakoli
	Expires: August 18, 2009 S. Dawson-Haggerty		Expires: October 17, 2009 S. Dawson-Haggerty
	UC Berkeley		UC Berkeley
	Feb 14, 2009		Apr 15, 2009
	Overview of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks		Overview of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks
	draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-06		draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34		skipping to change at page 1, line 34
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2009.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2009.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		and restrictions with respect to this document.
	to this document.
	Abstract		Abstract
	Low-power wireless devices, such as sensors, actuators and smart		Low-power wireless devices, such as sensors, actuators and smart
	objects, present difficult constraints: very limited memory, little		objects, present difficult constraints: very limited memory, little
	processing power, and long sleep periods. As most of these devices		processing power, and long sleep periods. As most of these devices
	are battery-powered, energy efficiency is critically important.		are battery-powered, energy efficiency is critically important.
	Wireless link qualities can vary significantly over time, requiring		Wireless link qualities can vary significantly over time, requiring
	protocols to make agile decisions yet minimize topology change energy		protocols to make agile decisions yet minimize topology change energy
	costs. Routing over such low power and lossy networks introduces		costs. Routing over such low power and lossy networks introduces
	skipping to change at page 14, line 27		skipping to change at page 14, line 27
	protocols. The table below shows, based on the criteria described		protocols. The table below shows, based on the criteria described
	above, whether these protocols meet ROLL criteria. Appendix A		above, whether these protocols meet ROLL criteria. Appendix A
	contains the reasoning behind each value in the table.		contains the reasoning behind each value in the table.
	Protocol State Loss Control Link Cost Node Cost		Protocol State Loss Control Link Cost Node Cost
	OSPF/IS-IS fail fail fail pass fail		OSPF/IS-IS fail fail fail pass fail
	OLSRv2 fail ? ? pass pass		OLSRv2 fail ? ? pass pass
	TBRPF fail pass fail pass ?		TBRPF fail pass fail pass ?
	RIP pass fail pass ? fail		RIP pass fail pass ? fail
	AODV pass fail pass fail fail		AODV pass fail pass fail fail
	DYMO pass ? pass ? fail		DYMO pass ? pass ? ?
	DSR fail pass pass fail fail		DSR fail pass pass fail fail
	Figure 1		Figure 1
	6. Link State Protocols		6. Link State Protocols
	6.1. OSPF & IS-IS		6.1. OSPF & IS-IS
	OSPF (specified in [RFC2328] for IPv4 and in [RFC2740] for IPv6)) is		OSPF (specified in [RFC2328] for IPv4 and in [RFC2740] for IPv6)) is
	a link state protocol designed for routing within an Internet		a link state protocol designed for routing within an Internet
	skipping to change at page 21, line 32		skipping to change at page 21, line 32
	"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,		"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
	September 2007.		September 2007.
	[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol		[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
	Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.		Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
	[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider		[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
	Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,		Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,
	September 2008.		September 2008.
			[chakeres.transparent]
			Chakeres, I. and E. Belding-Royer, "Transparent Influence
			of Path Selection in Heterogeneous Ad hoc Networks",
			Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Symposium on
			Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) ,
			September 2004.
	Appendix A. Routing protocol scalability analysis		Appendix A. Routing protocol scalability analysis
	This aim of this Appendix is to provide the details for the analysis		This aim of this Appendix is to provide the details for the analysis
	routing scalability analysis.		routing scalability analysis.
	"OSPF & IS-IS"		"OSPF & IS-IS"
	OSPF floods link state through a network. Each router must receive		OSPF floods link state through a network. Each router must receive
	this complete link set. OSPF fails the routing state criterion		this complete link set. OSPF fails the routing state criterion
	because it requires each router to discover each link in the network,		because it requires each router to discover each link in the network,
	skipping to change at page 25, line 4		skipping to change at page 25, line 13
	requirements on how nodes respond to route error RERR messages that		requirements on how nodes respond to route error RERR messages that
	denote a broken route. Therefore, while it is possible for a DYMO		denote a broken route. Therefore, while it is possible for a DYMO
	implementation to meet the loss response criterion, the specification		implementation to meet the loss response criterion, the specification
	is not clear on how to meet the criterion while still maintaining		is not clear on how to meet the criterion while still maintaining
	routes as link breaks . This leads to a ? in loss repsonse		routes as link breaks . This leads to a ? in loss repsonse
	[I-D.ietf-manet-dymo].		[I-D.ietf-manet-dymo].
	DYMO indicates that the "distance" of a link can vary from 1-65535		DYMO indicates that the "distance" of a link can vary from 1-65535
	[I-D.ietf-manet-dymo], leading to a ? in link cost. While additional		[I-D.ietf-manet-dymo], leading to a ? in link cost. While additional
	routing information can be added DYMO messages, there is no mention		routing information can be added DYMO messages, there is no mention
	of node properties, leading to a fail in node cost.		of node properties. There is great uncertainty whether DYMO can
			support them. While there are no direct mechanisms in DYMO that can
			meet this criterion, some research results suggest that indirect
			mechanisms, such as packet timing, could [chakeres.transparent].
			Therefore, supporting node cost would require additional mechanisms
			or specifications, leading to a ? on the node cost criterion.
	"DSR"		"DSR"
	DSR performs on-demand route discovery, and source routing of		DSR performs on-demand route discovery, and source routing of
	packets. It maintains a source route for all destinations, and also		packets. It maintains a source route for all destinations, and also
	a blacklist of all unidirectional neighbor links [RFC4728], leading		a blacklist of all unidirectional neighbor links [RFC4728], leading
	to a total table size of O(D + L), failing the routing state		to a total table size of O(D + L), failing the routing state
	criterion. Control traffic is completely data driven, and so DSR		criterion. Control traffic is completely data driven, and so DSR
	receives a pass for this criterion. Finally, a transmission failure		receives a pass for this criterion. Finally, a transmission failure
	only prompts an unreachable destination to be sent to the source of		only prompts an unreachable destination to be sent to the source of
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	11 lines changed or deleted		22 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/