IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> Wed, 16 November 2016 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
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 7C65812959A for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:06:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 b4Q14_YCWb36 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9136012959D for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:06:28 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,500,1473112800"; d="scan'208,217";a="200554018"
Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 16 Nov 2016 15:06:04 +0100
Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a197so241675047wmd.0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:06:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdnqSAq3OrjKuAQnMsjwiaO8fb9K1HFGWSYLFdLZ+dv97uIVUwSdZxQgT1CjqQMnhc/rDov3USoHgUYCQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.24.67 with SMTP id 64mr9697251wmy.136.1479305163860; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:06:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.142.23 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:05:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6f8fff17-2238-8470-7109-9a44b874eb00@toshiba.co.jp>
References: <CAAdgstS-_CszQZ-0aDf3sOrj4kuJ1MU6HR2Z97OoiecrPkSGdw@mail.gmail.com> <6f8fff17-2238-8470-7109-9a44b874eb00@toshiba.co.jp>
From: Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:05:43 +0900
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CADJ9OA8bVu=R+BGaesTZMnziAugs2gx80x15qsWeFeD=wpKepw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA8bVu=R+BGaesTZMnziAugs2gx80x15qsWeFeD=wpKepw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114692b8cf0e4a05416b9252"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/ELARPRRco3S_eguBfEq4uVIxrFk>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:06:32 -0000

@Tengfei,
Does that suggestion work for you or should we create an issue on SF0?
Thomas

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Yasuyuki Tanaka <
yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Tengfei,
>
> I think an assumption there is that a node has no state with its
> neighbors just after booting up or restarting. On the other hand, a
> neighbor of them may have cells allocated for the node. To resolve
> such a possible inconsistency, the node issues CLEAR to each of its
> neighbors.
>
> Best,
> Yatch
>
> On 2016/11/02 15:29, Tengfei Chang wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> For the decision when a node is restarted, the SF0 says:
>>
>>    In order to define a known state after the node is restarted, a CLEAR
>>    command is issued to each of the neighbor nodes to enable a new
>>    allocation process.  The 6P Initial Timeout Value provided by SF0
>>    should allow for the maximum number of TSCH link-layer retries, as
>>    defined by Section 4.3.4 of [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol <
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0-02#r
>> ef-I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol>].  TODO/
>>    REMARK: The initial timeout is currently under discussion.
>>
>>
>> A little suggestion is DO NOT issue a clear command to previous parent
>> until the nodes has reserved new cells to its new parent. This is to avoid
>> the swing if the reservation failed to its new parent and changed back to
>> previous parent.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Tengfei
>>
>> --
>> Chang Tengfei,
>> Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tisch mailing list
>> 6tisch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>



-- 
_______________________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com
_______________________________________

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status