The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Routing Metrics used for Path Calculation in Low Power and Lossy Networks' (draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-18.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics/ Technical Summary Low power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) have specific routing characteristics compared with traditional wired or ad-hoc networks that have been spelled out in [RFC5548], [RFC5673], [RFC5826] and [RFC5867]. These involve selecting routes that optimize for particular metrics under non-trivial constraints. Historically, IGP such as OSPF ([RFC2328]) and IS-IS ([RFC1195]) have used quantitative static link metrics. Other mechanisms such as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) (see [RFC2702] and [RFC3209]) make use of other link attributes such as the available reserved bandwidth (dynamic) or link affinities (most of the time static) to compute constrained shortest paths for Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). This document specifies routing metrics and constraints to be used in path calculation by the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) specified in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. It propose a flexible mechanism for the advertisement of routing metrics and constraints used by RPL. Some RPL implementations may elect to adopt an extremely simple approach based on the use of a single metric with no constraint whereas other implementations may use a larger set of link and node routing metrics and constraints. This specification provides a high degree of flexibility and a set of routing metrics and constraints, including node state and attributes, node energy, hop-count, estimated transmission count, throughput, latency, link reliability, mode of operation, or generic 'color'. Extensions are anticipated should ew routing metrics and constraints be defined in the future. Working Group Summary No issues. It took several iterations before we had a solid technical document. Document Quality Good quality. It is basically defining a type representation, so implementation is trivial. Personnel David Culler (culler@eecs.berkeley.edu) is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel (adrian.farrel@huawei.com) is the Responsible AD. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
