Multicast requirements for control over LLN
draft-vanderstok-roll-mcreq-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Van der Stok , Esko Dijk , Armand Lelkens | ||
| Last updated | 2013-01-15 (Latest revision 2012-07-14) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This is a working document intended to focus discussion on requirements for multicast in Low-power and Lossy Networks in the area of M2M communication for control applications. The Trickle algorithm, which uses random re-broadcasting to assure that messages arrive at all destinations, has been proposed in the Trickle Multicast Forwarding ROLL WG draft as the basis for a multicast routing protocol. In this draft additional requirements on multicast routing are presented, such as timeliness, motivated by building control. Random re-broadcasting and timeliness can be difficult to reconcile. This draft presents some simulation results in typical control settings which show that achieving latencies below 400 ms is feasible with Trickle. Recommendations are proposed for the current Trickle Multicast Forwarding draft to achieve optimal performance and meet the stated requirements.
Authors
Peter Van der Stok
Esko Dijk
Armand Lelkens
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)