Re: [6tisch] comments on draft-chang-6tisch-msf-01

Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@koalo.de> Tue, 28 August 2018 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <florian.kauer@koalo.de>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069E5130EA2 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=koalo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.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 bLWKJW664P1O for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (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 D71C8130DCC for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id h33-v6so1197303edb.5 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=koalo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Glqm9yW4QnPoA0kv6QiP4xtzXPSOFWSx4R/VZMN5GZI=; b=HosvqTcys5X68gCQDU2RDnPsQTmM7KnLFvUypQS9FbFM1RZkyN24OIVXlh+FctWXAF o70utu5lVU0gA0NFod9staMZgB2fhB1Nqi+XwmY6KiaEZ1oAMVs7JKdW/+W0ekl6ID8C +FRjHMX8eYJowyY7AT4LWMbAsH4d2SI7qpiRY+98mn+QLnJZyI3S1v+sYYZNW6B3cJdA 4fz5TlSsOLxJLudY/tyfetsPglbVSLL1qw1GDuYK7w2jSQhDhXcpCx1TPiqLcT0mtr0M R7blrZ27dsB61xC7TPfGOUndDhwk++kRaCB6gWpb071yQBc9QiVZXrcLhfWIH+6usprk uQhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Glqm9yW4QnPoA0kv6QiP4xtzXPSOFWSx4R/VZMN5GZI=; b=l4QKjawn0syejvUcGaWH9b+U2oRTJOmU5sSrmCp8iMnQrerSUoZb5/OzR3fc87vgwK 6l2LoUSSEyiM3cPoV2SsPrSNmjjPZOtHlhk6ZAZlu3c4NzxBQz5aq3gUb3KsPLJLtEr9 aZM2ItQ01fhP6i9+zoaMKm89H8mR8tN03ev9gm54r6TbyX9cOwewKMuK2grUCiiu4YF3 jFHRVLYss4dLarDAEK6+C7vX5UV/CMMeuV7ukksuL44RkZI0BdFkpN/95fzZN2WIkGsg qO+04rLVMlF7w100o1NzGVEYoxkikTmyc6b9dbAcSHO01oReNuWwZbDfTZuA5ASIdo1o Z/NA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CAYyisrqFCa8VI2IiZDf1cueHGWQHi6DS1swq8m5fDhr9P4qi1 4dRzz4RIBLaV6IarDQGnZ/zigHqETCYWdQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaSPa5R4Kxx2ENvVXoebN4bT6YeiT3YT8njBSQdZQeWtwdf6JCYlit4ADesmj5pnOM8KZ9lHw==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:a402:: with SMTP id u2-v6mr2057767edb.237.1535458336676; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [134.28.77.222] ([134.28.77.222]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z19-v6sm593328edd.77.2018.08.28.05.12.15 for <6tisch@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
References: <0D7241BB-2312-40D2-B1E0-4C448BC6DE64@inria.fr>
From: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@koalo.de>
Message-ID: <dc5410b3-7c3f-5712-591d-6e08df81980f@koalo.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:12:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0D7241BB-2312-40D2-B1E0-4C448BC6DE64@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/1qL0iMVSrMaffZKlzY5xF10PRBM>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on draft-chang-6tisch-msf-01
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:12:22 -0000

Hi,
regarding section "5. Rules for Adding/Deleting Cells" of

     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-00

I noticed some issues. Some of them are already addressed by Yasuyuki 
Tanaka in a previous review of draft-chang-6tisch-msf-01 but it seems 
they have not been addressed yet.

 > 2.  When the value of NumCellsPassed reaches MAX_NUMCELLS:
 >      *  If NumCellsUsed > LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_HIGH, trigger 6P to add a
 >          single cell to the preferred parent
 >      *  If NumCellsUsed < LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_LOW, trigger 6P to remove
 >          single cell to the preferred parent
 >      *  Reset both NumCellsPassed and NumCellsUsed to 0 and go to step
 >         2.

In particular, in 5.1. the inequalities NumCellsUsed > 
LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_HIGH and NumCellsUsed < LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_LOW do not 
match the intention of the recommended values of LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_HIGH 
and LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_LOW as percentages.

In addition, it seems that MAX_NUMCELLS is not defined in 
draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-00. Is it defined in another draft? I expect its 
value (or better: the use of this value in MSF) has a tremendous impact 
on the ability of MSF to handle volatile traffic.

 > The node MUST maintain the following counters for its preferred
 > parent:

What is the reason that dynamic allocation of slots is only performed 
towards the parent and not towards children?

Greetings,
Florian

On 14.06.2018 18:16, Yasuyuki Tanaka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm sharing my comments on draft-chang-6tisch-msf-01.
> 
>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chang-6tisch-msf-01
> 
> 
> [1] how should a node handle a 6P transaction failure?
> 
> draft> 3.  Node Behavior at Boot
> draft> ...
> draft> 3.6.  Step 5 - 6P ADD to Preferred Parent
> draft>
> draft>    After having selected a preferred parent, the joined node MUST issue
> draft>    a 6P ADD command to that parent, with the following fields:
> 
> What should the joining node do if the ADD transaction fails? It
> should retry the ADD command after waiting for [WAITDURATION_MIN,
> WAITDURATION_MAX]? If so, how many times should it retry at the
> maximum?
> 
> 
> [2] what cell options will additional dedicated cells have?
> 
> draft> 4.1.  Adapting to Traffic
> ....
> draft>    o  If the node determines that the number of link-layer frames it is
> draft>       attempting to exchange with its preferred parent per unit of time
> draft>       is larger than the capacity offered by the TSCH cells it has
> draft>       scheduled with it, it triggers a 6P Transaction with its preferred
> draft>       parent to add cells to the TSCH schedule of both nodes.
> 
> It's unclear to me what cell options additional dedicated cells will
> have. NumCellsUsed is the number of frame exchanges in dedicated
> cells, which doesn't care about directions: incoming or outgoing.
> 
> draft>    NumCellsUsed:  Counts the number of dedicated cells that have been
> draft>        used.  This counter is initialized at 0.  NumCellsUsed is
> draft>        incremented by exactly 1 when, during a dedicated cell to the
> draft>        preferred parent, either of the following happens:
> draft>
> draft>        *  The node sends a frame to its preferred parent.  The counter
> draft>           increments regardless of whether a link-layer acknowledgment
> draft>           was received or not.
> draft>        *  The node receives a frame from its preferred parent.
> 
> In other words, NumCellsUsed doesn't give you any idea how many frames
> were transmitted or how many frames were received.
> 
> There could be two options:
> 
> - (1) have one NumCellsUsed variables per direction
> - (2) count only transmissions in NumCellsUsed; dedicated RX cells are
>        scheduled via 6P transactions initiated by the peer
> 
> If you want 6P transactions initiated only by a child, the first one
> is the choice.
> 
> 
> [3] How do we choose dedicated cell to be deleted?
> 
> draft> 4.1.  Adapting to Traffic
> draft> ...
> draft>    2.  When the value of NumCellsPassed reaches MAX_NUMCELLS:
> draft>
> draft>        *  If NumCellsUsed > LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_HIGH, trigger 6P to add a
> draft>           single cell to the preferred parent
> draft>        *  If NumCellsUsed < LIM_NUMCELLSUSED_LOW, trigger 6P to remove a
> draft>           single cell to the preferred parent
> 
> How do we choose cells to be set in CellList of a 6P DELETE request?
> They should be randomly chosen? Or, they should be chosen in order
> from the lowest PDR cell?
> 
> NumCellsUsed in that bullet list should be (NumCellsUsed /
> NumCellsPassed) or ((NumCellsUsed / NumCellsPassed * 100), by the way.
> 
> 
> [4] (trivial comment)
> 
> draft> 4.2.  Switching Parent
> draft> ...
> draft>    1.  the node counts the number of dedicated cells it has per
> draft>        slotframe to the old preferred parent
> draft>    2.  the node triggers one or more 6P ADD commands to schedule the
> draft>        same number of dedicated cells to the new preferred parent
> 
> To be precise, it'd better to mention about cell options as well as
> how many dedicated cells are scheduled.
> 
> 
> [5] questions in Handling Schedule Collisions
> 
> draft> 4.3.  Handling Schedule Collisions
> draft> ...
> draft>   Each time the node switches preferred parent (or during the join
> draft>   process when the node selects a preferred parent for the first time),
> draft>   both NumTx and NumTxAck MUST be reset to 0.  They increment over
> 
> When should a parent reset NumTx and NumTxAck for a dedicated cell?
> 
> Another question related to this topic: how does a parent remove a
> dedicated cell scheduled during the join process if the child leaves
> without a successful 6P command transaction?
> 
> draft> 4.3.  Handling Schedule Collisions
> draft> ...
> draft>    The key for detecting a schedule collision is that, if a node has
> draft>    several cells to the same preferred parent, all cells should exhibit
> draft>    the same PDR.  A cell which exhibits a PDR significantly lower than
> draft>    the others indicates than there are collisions on that cell.
> 
> Do we exclude a dedicated cell having SHARED bit on for this collision
> detection? If it's excluded, how do we handle collisions on such a
> dedicated cell? If it's not excluded, a dedicated cell having SHARED
> bit on tends to be relocated since usually it could have lower PDR
> than other dedicated cells which doesn't have SHARED bit on. How do we
> cope with this situation?
> 
> draft> 4.3.  Handling Schedule Collisions
> draft> ...
> draft>    2.  Any cell that hasn't yet had NumTx divided by 2 since it was last
> draft>        reset is skipped in steps 3 and 4.  This avoids triggering cell
> draft>        relocation when the values of NumTx and NumTxAck are not
> draft>        statistically significant yet.
> 
> Does this mean, skip 3 and 4 for cells whose NumTx have never been
> divided by 2 (never reached 256)? I'm not sure the meaning of "since
> it was last reset".
> 
> 
> That's it! Thank you.
> 
> Best,
> Yatch
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>