Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that, one will expect to see the same M_FLOOD from the same sender via >> multiple paths. That's fine, and I think it's good. But, comparing them is >> kind of meaningless, because once you find out who the sender is, the unicast >> routing takes over, and you will take the unicast direction only. >> If one hears announcements from multiple senders, then there might be >> different directions, but the TTL you see in the M_FLOOD may have NOTHING to >> do with what the unicast cost is.
> True, in a general topology - the LL multicasts combined with GRASP
relaying
> will ammount to a spanning tree rooted at the M_FLOOD sender, but the
unicast
> paths will be set by RPL. There's no reason they will be congruent. They
might
> be. This is a good point!
As an example, take any ring-like metro-ethernet architecture that an ISP
might deploy. They have multiple redundant paths across the network, and
they use them for customer data... there is a lot of work going to balance
traffic across such structures.
On top of that, impose a strict DODAG structure with the NOC as the root, and
one can see that ACP traffic between adjacent nodes on a metro-ethernet ring
may well travel all the way to the DODAG root and down again, while an
M_FLOOD will travel sideways.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
