Re: [6tisch] Question/Comment on draft-chang-6tisch-6top-msf

Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr> Wed, 15 November 2017 08:43 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 02CDB1279EB for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:43:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 F4Ae9DD92TjW for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) (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 5F6851200C1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:43:41 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,398,1505772000"; d="scan'208,217";a="300855403"
Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com ([209.85.213.53]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-GCM-SHA256; 15 Nov 2017 09:43:39 +0100
Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id p80so145411vkd.10 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:43:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX52tgONPLX3hMsYnqTcMn875lF8bwqsFbrwpFXuIpwG87wLwYgM 9l/MlN8UEGCk+/TBkqmIfYJCO6ZaL78kTEvh+mU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbywgZlIzuY4wXZWNuZnQXmWIc3n66MCQOAUiEdQeaaMxj5DMDZbbaVTIizTbU9EWb966oyTeu1zB/fet7NeJs=
X-Received: by 10.31.183.21 with SMTP id h21mr11686363vkf.60.1510735418495; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:43:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.45.143 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:43:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAdgstS8zscASk5tnU3bvDRmDeW-+hQB5ADgbVL95eiycJNLbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CY1PR12MB0475F2E8A867263AB926A6C59D280@CY1PR12MB0475.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> <CAAdgstS8zscASk5tnU3bvDRmDeW-+hQB5ADgbVL95eiycJNLbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:43:17 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CADJ9OA-04W8qZCWYF=UmjKfQP-qpCz5DXfMKnUdsQ51Hd_8tzA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA-04W8qZCWYF=UmjKfQP-qpCz5DXfMKnUdsQ51Hd_8tzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@inria.fr>
Cc: john rubis <john.rubis@hotmail.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143a07af821ee055e017fd5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/XFluy8wiChGAB5czarynR6Y-OIE>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Question/Comment on draft-chang-6tisch-6top-msf
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 15 Nov 2017 08:43:44 -0000

John,

What you describe is the intended behavior.

Thomas

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@inria.fr>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Before switching parent, the node still can keep synchronized to it's old
> parent through the TXRXSHARED cell. That cell is only shared between the
> node and its parent.
> The keepalive on TXRXSHARED cell should be able to keep the node
> synchronized.
>
> Tengfei
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:34 AM, john rubis <john.rubis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think the MSF draft states/infers this, but I wanted to verify.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the case a node has a valid preferred parent and wishes to switch to a
>> new one then:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dedicated link(s) to its current parent initially remain in place. This
>> way, while dedicated link(s) are being setup with the new, I’ll call it the
>> ‘Candidate Parent’, the node and its possible children remain connected and
>> reachable. During this period, the node also maintains its rank and time
>> synchronization to the current parent, not the candidate parent. Once
>> dedicated link(s) are established to the new parent, the node updates its
>> rank and time syncs to the new parent. All up stream packets now are routed
>> through the new parent and link(s) to the old parent are cleared.
>>
>>
>>
>> It has been observed in our system,  that the links to the new parent can
>> take some time to setup over the single minimal cell. Especially in dense
>> networks. This may cause a node to desync or loose connectivity for an
>> extended period of time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank  you,
>>
>>
>>
>> John Rubis
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 6tisch mailing list
>> 6tisch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Chang Tengfei,
> Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________