Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-expiration-time-00.txt
sajjad akbar <sajjad.akr1@gmail.com> Sat, 26 November 2016 12:34 UTC
Return-Path: <sajjad.akr1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4C812951C for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:34:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1hWKPoR2b2MU for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4291295A5 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id t196so66493109lff.3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:34:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LKqtsGo+VcxNeab4xGtQk7cEIuy6dysreM7WxUivQJI=; b=daz/dMlYSuXhFEKBZiMEcoIlbLsjIXiMm0ATV834fgA/fRp8M7iNL1tSTXp7rtwes4 4WgyIDBLsZAalOc75CJ1sWibcegDkicHlfFNauNvSLBIzaYWpdr4cHbVzZjPVS43ErUi eJ8F0i19g/9RSjdrY7wMPbyNVnroHW/5q6RQKmuCjfA9zONnz2ZYA5JcQ8lAm0dHIDsB MEzwopGWT4OLoRTDG5V66ctFw9g9hb98jMkKwE0a2q84PvHktfjroipK34HWgZkEspGM irsvJM+dvQUmUUDmMorqQHEHH273EnV53gC5ruMgAVjl2ceNLjBii2dLjL6eVFThw0om eQtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LKqtsGo+VcxNeab4xGtQk7cEIuy6dysreM7WxUivQJI=; b=JTjcQE6xRSGEKdq50XM4F7RIPNVNJrQTOSImnsQ6i0amIsgfmobmFWuoCMi+rvPpjZ RzWwmc3XQuImy1c9l3MWlPvEbWnj0NDoXFVTuprPROwF9DAmNARyg0EH2xVfIWJMwEoB QC0iZScxkn0qsgnEnhzeR42a3zih6oCv/BlwKuTTUCHUrKzZ5tARbtu0+hGqGk8sruKV GPgEHQBFquksdnCRPVWKYloVeYbDGZ4XPBTArwUqt0xzTnQkKnRLra8hYpK+KEg6Z7dC s0aRW3cf6NzHO3ZM0Lk4wIwYf4RWrZJRb+1kJjqt4g0nfR1d0MWM1iulXYHyCHZ3MVBo NQ5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02rLcIbWP73Mun+n3g5ZejRsih3+e1fnDSUJC0zqw3rK1cPh+iLfCm5ueJ7/gVX0c/omffZ4bVv+7HaFQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.39.206 with SMTP id n197mr5072039lfn.66.1480163676429; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:34:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.196.210 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 04:34:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <011501d246db$2b976550$82c62ff0$@cdac.in>
References: <87mvgqrghn.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <87fumhr0tw.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <011501d246db$2b976550$82c62ff0$@cdac.in>
From: sajjad akbar <sajjad.akr1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 12:34:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CAByBar_dCXE3xLA3b36SfEveBrXLKKP3UEMjhmW7miOT=-cyZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lijo Thomas <lijo@cdac.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114110de24a36905423376be"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/BYzhZntn-f1Mq53jWTRdFKRUMtY>
Cc: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, lo <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-expiration-time-00.txt
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 12:34:40 -0000
Hi Can anyone recommend me a draft where routing issues are discussed in 6lo? I am working on link metrics for routing in low-power networks and it will help me to align my research according to some standard. Looking forward for the reply Regards Sajjad On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Lijo Thomas <lijo@cdac.in> wrote: > Hi Dale, > > Thanks for your valuable suggestion !!! > > The explanation is perfect for the packets whose Source and Destination are > within the same network(For example., same 6TiSCH network).When a packet > traverses from heterogeneous networks then "Time in microseconds" is the > natural way to represent it. > > We can think of designing "slot time" approach from Leaf node to LBR and > convert it into "Time(micro-seconds)" at the gateway node. But, again the > issue is we will be having Time mismatch during the conversion from > slot-time to "microseconds". > > We will certainly work on the idea you suggested so that we can come up > with > a proposition without compromising on the generality. > > > Thanks & Regards, > Lijo Thomas > > > -----Original Message----- > From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley > Sent: 24 November 2016 09:23 > To: lijo@cdac.in; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : > draft-lijo-6lo-expiration-time-00.txt > > To me, it would be natural to specify an expiration time as the > time-to-expiration, measured in slot times. > draft-lijo-6lo-expiration-time-00 specifies expiration time as an absolute > time, measured from ASN=0 in microseconds. The latter approach seems to > require larger headers, without making processing much simpler. > > It seems to me that measuring expriation time in microseconds is no more > useful than measuring it in slot times, because there is no functional > difference between any of the 10,000 microseconds within a single 10 ms > slot > time. But counting microseconds requires an additional 13 bits (over 1.5 > octets) in the header. > > Specifying time-to-expiration means that every time the packet is > forwarded, > the expiration header must be updated. But it can make the expiration > header shorter. For instance, in the example I mentioned in my previous > message, > > Example: In a 6TiSCH network let the time-slot length be 10ms. If > the network has been operational for 2 years, the > packet_origination_time = Current ASN is 6,307,200,000, and the > max_allowable_delay is 1 second, then: > > expiration_time = packet_origination_time + max_allowable_delay > = 6,307,200,000*10 ms + 1 second > = 63,072,001,000,000 microseconds > > or > > expiration_time = ASN 6,307,200,100 > > Expressing the absolute expiration time in slot times requires 33 bits/5 > octets. But the time-to-expiration is only 100 and can be expressed in > 7 bits/1 octet. > > Dale > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > [ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ] > > This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email > is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >
- [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-expirat… Lijo Thomas
- [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-expirat… Lijo Thomas
- Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-exp… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-exp… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-exp… Lijo Thomas
- Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-exp… Lijo Thomas
- Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-exp… sajjad akbar
- Re: [6lo] IETF 97 : Comments : draft-lijo-6lo-exp… sajjad akbar