IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] MSF and RPL

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2019 07:42 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 41BB51200B1 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 00:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4lwTR_go6Ok8 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2019 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (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 5572F12004B for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id a3so890126pgb.3 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 00:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kR/hEUWmQZo4bUQfJqaUKwfPD4SG2aBfzhfnpNbBFDE=; b=Uo3ied2xyg5oHIw3SzfiQ9LvmRhZFtiBwWYPwtQBLfIfBPP8E1tN5WU9V67GRf8lym HWUowNhAmL5iRoMNMw2+BtMyVyK0Iz2U3Iz9hnlzdRZ9AgT9HGNmR3HZzr6Zl7urd9bz CfNPceov+TrQR5eDUSTFmu2905dW7DDwB0l2Sg/z7CKrYoPCJ1Bs6GHkq9/mYSjXtER/ IXg85QQZHxNFCEjWNiptLWR3Q61BZGF+BthZbiwpmTHluqbmUqEECaZURT8bV7qsPz4D S2OK/IcJgEYCEdDOjgFvrPbioZ2K0OG3a+kQ1GuCyOiklrhIlQj2fbkIAkcAT83CXec+ Q5mw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kR/hEUWmQZo4bUQfJqaUKwfPD4SG2aBfzhfnpNbBFDE=; b=Cs2hWiwnxOdtLlIULXHw5Mu5UaFLWU5Q30QYh5cUYM3DmWoSzhG7PBaOhTD+dESSxT S8Zvwx73VhXTHURn2qfme3Mtwn2G80JNjNWkt1KIfaKDxv+qvU9Vc5CM11FBwfvh0BVR JSgFgIkgZVnLQMufYQftTu/ks4/JfLY4dV7y1GamQOAammrIcMMlIuaJUKheHqW93FqK hhZkXf2Je3D+BbgU7eKf6XCruXpPGa5Oz5VvH36TnQSA4p1mi9qL1sptKv2YOpbIoLE3 wP8VgEpbdcYIlageChsBK5BrNpPwpAmz80DpVzytMha1ZYETqnODj4ZzMYsF3iQBS0Ko afPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUvJ+Qt8KBzPusygsBBWEnAmS7btSB58WLlptEPB/We5Y2ExK9e xHV0RZaASlzmdkuATsY0qF5O2QzDUdvjRbfnLJpn9DdmPmM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwz00cVFpKueHwvPLWOZKDb/b7tadRgAazZj+i1hlfvC0jpZ3xNsZIhQCU9JAM28MBkExIPWPNZoHgVzq7dvCA=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:2e47:: with SMTP id u68mr6002299pfu.24.1558510935540; Wed, 22 May 2019 00:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <A00C61B6-693C-4C72-A800-0DE815F0B8C2@tuhh.de>
In-Reply-To: <A00C61B6-693C-4C72-A800-0DE815F0B8C2@tuhh.de>
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 09:42:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAdgstS1jv4MC0caokq24NuvQWb4YFPmi_p6isMepu+hB=nMwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Koojana Kuladinithi <koojana.kuladinithi@tuhh.de>
Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b109020589751a22"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/MfNQUUZkwkrQHFWUKgfZgOHZ3kg>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] MSF and RPL
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 22 May 2019 07:42:18 -0000

Hi Koojana,

It's true that MSF works with RPL closely. And it's mainly designed for
upstream traffic.

As you mentioned, MSF could be extended by having autonomous cell to any
potential neighbors that the node intend to have packet exchanged with.
The concept of parent/upstream node could be replaced by the nexthop of the
routing protocols, I think.

Tengfei

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 6:49 AM Koojana Kuladinithi <
koojana.kuladinithi@tuhh.de> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I tried to understand the MSF draft and read in the impression that this
> was written to work with any kind of routing protocol.
> But, my thinking is that this is written more specifically to work with
> RPL.
>
>     A
>    /  \
>   C   B
>  /
> D
>
> For example, in section 3, for the above figure you will end up with
> having only 2 autonomous cells, which are correspond to the MAC addresses
> of A and C. In a flat routing, nodes cannot identify the parent/upstream
> nodes, the same four nodes example, autonomous cells might be decided based
> on neighbours, and will result in having 2 more cells corresponding to B
> and D mac addresses.
>
> Can somebody make MSF implementation working with any other routing
> protocol other than RPL?
>
> Kind regards
> Koojana
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>


-- 
Chang Tengfei,
Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email