Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0
Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> Wed, 16 November 2016 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <tengfei.chang@gmail.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 C57891294B9 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:49:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, 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 4b-hLNadtt-X for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 7C7381294AF for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f82so78030574wmf.1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:49:04 -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=5YAWuxtS3ReBhskzS+/QU5/4rfDPW3c/I9pRnTWF8dk=; b=NZuhAg84qjp82Tkd7kcuyFWZ8ddR2b6rlZdLGZq4NwdvpC6y9mn3tAIQViEApSL/rZ 24zzE1ObQnTV/PsE3uIKSMDSj/03H4aF8C/mwU2yeIfOwqifRAIChEIMQqm/dfOjeGXs I53LQrGBP3Lpt2B6JR25PcKYh3jioddM34XF5P+ie9z061V7hL6ktv570Xb0/F8oPqJL 99bFrCgt3jXlEMDFSuKANvQ1dAdWFf52QwSrFT7lQulQz2eS8tmEWYE41cyQ9d0ynYMS qrd+ivs+ollmlhFEkqxQsstN2UHgY+hBmMKKxxyANQv4sl/e49+LfAxJc+QOLJgKFS7A xNOQ==
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=5YAWuxtS3ReBhskzS+/QU5/4rfDPW3c/I9pRnTWF8dk=; b=iiB1fTkF4AP+MW55TTbzPKswwGbPRml+czfWS7I3Juo4Z0lpGa/blVqzXT7/Fts6LY VxfxCTNsXmVoeKgpATQli1nZ5I7riFrRaIXySKrzRGcPdi986zDn6FEHRRmQnQ+uuLuL ytAPJ0REYflh2iMun6ElugH4DBQfcL7h14hWWuR9APiAf5Crwh5Q4Au2KagvJOubrkty /KykCjLWANAgVgz8pQCcB+SBX4p7rPUsMfhPzxzCN/j/uolIsYI8PHNIWA/WoffPLePl B2gnBTOaTymdcyeEtgACffzU0Ks8MPj5tBH1o8b4K7KdUpVCf6dsKT9x1Wz8H193JJEC PE3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvffP7KIa19OSg3FXIu/5Eiuoredx/2k8txsLgD0BtSAyOc66twDiaWZ3x74WnJFzJRvIm8JYCxV3tWDjw==
X-Received: by 10.28.153.201 with SMTP id b192mr10742050wme.61.1479307743013; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:49:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.74.70 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:49:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADJ9OA8bVu=R+BGaesTZMnziAugs2gx80x15qsWeFeD=wpKepw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAdgstS-_CszQZ-0aDf3sOrj4kuJ1MU6HR2Z97OoiecrPkSGdw@mail.gmail.com> <6f8fff17-2238-8470-7109-9a44b874eb00@toshiba.co.jp> <CADJ9OA8bVu=R+BGaesTZMnziAugs2gx80x15qsWeFeD=wpKepw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:49:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAdgstThCmpg=W=Raamdp5690wfKjWzo9Yi=cerDjMfjGTx4zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114ba8ea892e8105416c2c07"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/J1bQIV2SBjaMM5U_dKUiYZ80RLA>
Cc: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp>, "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 14:49:07 -0000
@Yatch, I see the point. I have no doubt now about the behaviors after the node boot. I am thinking another case that a node needs send a CLEAR command to previous parent if it changed. I guess this is not mentioned in the draft? @Thomas, maybe we can create an issue for that? Let me know if this is already mentioned in the draft. Tengfei On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> wrote: > @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 > _______________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > 6tisch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > > -- Chang Tengfei, Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
- [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Tengfei Chang
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Tengfei Chang
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Michael Richardson
- Re: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0 Thomas Watteyne