Subject: [RSN] Sleepy routers

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 06:01:08 +0530

>From the proposed charter and name of the group I know that low-power
and lossy are two important components. I was wondering whether these
routers sleeping most (95%+) of the time should also be elevated to
this status.

What do you think? Is the fact that routers are sleeping a lot one of
the core issues that needs to be solved in this WG?

Ian

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

---

From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:17:41 -0600

> the core issues that needs to be solved in this WG?

Cool!

Hopefully, the working group will start by specifying the semantics
of multicast in networks where most of the nodes are sleeping most
of the time.

Then, maybe, the working group can explain how to realize those
semantics.

-tjs

---

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:24:39 -0800

I don't know if we need to address it directly, but I think that one of 
the really interesting questions is how to route over (one or more) L2s 
that have at least three orders of magnitude *configurable* tradeoff 
between two parameters of interest: data rate and lifetime.
There are WSN protocols in use today which can be configured to operate 
anywhere from 100% duty cycle down to well under 0.1%, on a link-by-link 
basis.
The simplest approach is to route with what is currently configured, and 
push the responsibility for configuration changes elsewhere.  Perhaps 
there are existing protocols that do this?  It seems like some of the 
existing traffic engineering work might be relevant. 
For example, I may know due to ND that I can talk directly to the final 
destination, but currently have no bandwidth configured (or not already 
spoken for) to do so.  Where does the tradeoff between QoS, user 
preferences for node lifetime, routing, and L2 duty cycle configuration 
happen?

I don't know how much, if any, of this fits in the scope of RoLL.  In 
any case, it is interesting to study.

ksjp

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:48:49 -0700

Tim,
  What do you mean by saying most of the nodes are sleeping most of the
time.

Ian's question is much more insightful.  There is a big difference
between networks that have all of the routers awake all of the time and
a network where the routers sleep.

I have no idea which you mean.  I understand what Ian means.

	geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:50:43 -0700

Ian,
  I don't know if one of the CORE issues, but I do think that it is an
issue.

	geoff

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:30:38 -0500

Hi,

Nodes in L2Ns could be on sleep indeed. That being said (although certainly
interesting), we would not work on networks comprising sleepy nodes that are
non low power, interconnected with non lossy links (this is a DTN issue).

Thanks.

JP.

> From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:24:39 -0800
> To: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [RSN] Sleepy routers
>