Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P
Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com> Tue, 29 November 2016 21:41 UTC
Return-Path: <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
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 27E7C1293F0 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:41:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.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 fIogcn42XMqp for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm18-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm18-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.138]) (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 85ECC1294EE for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:41:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1480455681; bh=Tayt9BMYjh59HeNWDnMLnjAaVxXSS43DFx5IIRCP+0w=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=XkPCKYuQiXz3wkDi0q8Z6r4wwVbUQimgQcjnDl/WKoTYrv+WH/g1vn4s9XN4HI+Y2JQjkiOiz3QXgJOXiIGgVXDpOlP0MeQAxfhwwRIZY2yfqlgyopgDh0rIWmwDxB7C0dL51RJ8HJwuynt4EcgaRnOafI+msQV/HU6SzQhPy+HzTXZHPM5EZhsi/ZsbMja17ZBEvrSVVdNA6WbWyIooPFxH8Ubyu+NyRZOYx6c/L7LBclHhAq2XfRnfngQTOCGiyqfApTIu+MTobR7GL2C7yuHzCsqiGbvSAT/kTv0BF/pwA0Azy1ikFt1Fo5kMtm9w5pns063KAgEJctfcZqzNsQ==
Received: from [98.139.215.143] by nm18.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2016 21:41:21 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.212] by tm14.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2016 21:41:21 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1021.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Nov 2016 21:41:21 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 614875.73693.bm@omp1021.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: Myv8Z4AVM1nO2lThgCXC4fv8pBx7rrutczMfmsgjJ6e_YHEw4rpOdl65gvwTTxG cFNDaOVWYc.zU.daGJezhqM4zEHmaInjG1TBVuZAKZYekaFqx81o3P3A2ZwbUaAE2Pc5.pyjWYkb UM3AG3oROdcgLmGnto1OOZ5Hlp0kdN6qT2y_zy634pTr89JADBZ21usXo8FA8BiuZwhhmuUszAsO SABjo5I2OjHwwipX7CVltISvrLrGPW0479v7tO7SoIJ5sc3p0MN7HjFnwtLnWhkrA1K3GWGzjbg8 Dm.h0Sr_O1dn.UcFH0FKLUb9YUvkLGoVtX9Knc4vIf5gLnJ56t9hPFgM2_X8bwBEjrU3b9kyV.wQ t95ocF.mkqzrDs97oZrQutJVtY6yU5ZZCkTCebbRTSriAKU2uNe0Trl_rMol5Bv2FWcOCt7SQcV2 Gz1mFrEDY84KemSSPTMvWG5uB0cUX1GrMRY5ESDCrjRLx0_jADxecbTsw6op9Wx_Cz4WvFngywzQ-
Received: from jws400030.mail.bf2.yahoo.com by sendmailws110.mail.bf1.yahoo.com; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:41:21 +0000; 1480455681.238
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:40:32 +0000
From: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
To: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp>
Message-ID: <417706060.2950304.1480455632701@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <b19ebf9e-f175-f871-3653-5c89f7201a6c@toshiba.co.jp>
References: <1739694970.195512.1479755120596.JavaMail.root@vilafranca.uoc.es> <CAC9+vPiG9ZqziO8ktpuwJrc4YcRQ7Wj1e+ZciNHmZvUE9JafPw@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA-BZrQHEX9yeSoj3_8p-NOoqq0g8o=6hZ_JS-53b+vNYQ@mail.gmail.com> <e431f7a2-48bb-0605-5a90-bdb0cc134322@toshiba.co.jp> <1833275349.763606.1479942137593@mail.yahoo.com> <b19ebf9e-f175-f871-3653-5c89f7201a6c@toshiba.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2950303_629243505.1480455632700"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/86N8LX6dTbnO9YpcdSEuHfv-8bQ>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
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, 29 Nov 2016 21:41:24 -0000
Hi Yasuyuki, I'm not sure I fully understand you. Let's assume node A wants to ADD cells with nodeB in 2-step transaction. After nodeA sends ADD Request to nodeB, the Timeout of nodeA is set. nodeB receives the ADD Request, adds the cells to its schedule and sends Response back to nodeA at same time. Unfortunately, nodeA does not get the Response before Timeout, then the schedules on two sides become inconsistent. In this case, only generation counter in the following message exchange can tell the difference. right? ThanksQin On Thursday, November 24, 2016 9:27 AM, Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp> wrote: Hi Qin, Thank you for replying to my long email!! I put the two cases you provided below, in which schedule generation inconsistency could occur: (1) failure in communication because of PHY problems like bed channel condition, collision (2) failure in processing because of MAC problems such as buffer overflow. These failures cause timeout at the 6P layer, don't they? Why don't we consider a transaction ending with timeout as conceivably inconsistent? If we would do that, we would not need to maintain the generation counter; we would use wider bit space for SeqNum in a 6P message. 6P could be simpler. It's up to a corresponding SF how to deal with such a transaction. Relying on timeout alone, we cannot tell if a concerned operation is committed by a correspondent when the transaction ends with timeout. An example is the case where a request is lost because of (1) or (2) in 2-step transaction. If the operation is not committed, the requester takes wrongly the transaction as inconsistent. This case is what I call false positive. It's not a big deal, I guess... Best, Yatch
- [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Xavi Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Xavi Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka