[6tisch] MSF and RPL
Koojana Kuladinithi <koojana.kuladinithi@tuhh.de> Wed, 22 May 2019 04:48 UTC
Return-Path: <koojana.kuladinithi@tuhh.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 2EE2F1200DE for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tuhh.de
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 Rz1zCGP53evW for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.rz.tu-harburg.de (smtp1.rz.tu-harburg.de [134.28.205.38]) (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 AC3F3120072 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 21:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tu-harburg.de (mail4.rz.tu-harburg.de [134.28.202.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.tuhh.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by smtp1.rz.tu-harburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4580Wz5c4fzxS0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 06:48:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailspring.rz.tuhh.de (mailspring.rz.tuhh.de [134.28.202.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ckk6755@KERBEROS.TU-HARBURG.DE) by mail.tu-harburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4580Wz4tbjzJrC2 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2019 06:48:47 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhh.de; s=x2019-21; t=1558500527; bh=4LXsKYYwXDLOp2wwkl/NNPY99n0liLX6AScWxgL3Fo0=; h=From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject: Message-Id:Date:To; b=a9BYILF2Fs6wwI0B5IP/f4AKGqJxpyqZB1PSwt6sx0k5/zjZUIgc9im2KSTbB66Sc W36xrdaXXgR4YP0X2l4YzsEp4rTQqiZRdUQ6aQp6Yu80BdudGC8U6VSUf0NFfp2dEX sopuRplY4gnkKpRrTGisT6YYXIIHQ/jeMesFFUdI=
From: Koojana Kuladinithi <koojana.kuladinithi@tuhh.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Message-Id: <A00C61B6-693C-4C72-A800-0DE815F0B8C2@tuhh.de>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 06:48:46 +0200
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/WBILtm9jsyVtT0wHpd13u41JvzE>
Subject: [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 04:48:53 -0000
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
- Re: [6tisch] MSF and RPL Tengfei Chang
- [6tisch] MSF and RPL Koojana Kuladinithi