Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to be suboptimal
Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se> Fri, 23 September 2016 19:02 UTC
Return-Path: <simon.duquennoy@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 BBC8612B6A3 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=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 1JtF9jr8yDo8 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 1230712B67A for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l132so48585638wmf.0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=VR9yJe2O6F1caeuqNaHvpeg7LijYbTT3pCJjQ77ygH4=; b=cWEuQfZh761wEz1I9yqkfRArU9PsKKhSl6srljmIUFA7vOLSKnpt5nXdWgaE17OgoJ PYJZy7beJtNTBWznk/WQ+v52I9QvFgEGc8ur83RjK3z26nVYIJZX6jRrka1vxpyW69QI K3sOk0ZC0FA8V47QF1zfLDBAixwEdrnxNSa0KTBNADEndidFmv+O1WyClf4hGr4yQJhd Z8qekgbT6NaTnyA4xQ7FL/aqslrBv1EOtd4rm4bX7CL4Ox5KRELtaf3W0ztlZ39RjDcW 3w2cIDws7yLDRf+ECGlNmdRPdYqG2WDX3HNiGUlOIjXOkCaNepFlh2WA6bDQ24x0Vbzn 2rDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VR9yJe2O6F1caeuqNaHvpeg7LijYbTT3pCJjQ77ygH4=; b=LVwaiXxqqn6KWWPaSqp+84FuAYb6CdK0ILrEZzksZZTbOF2dG8/ps+Y8cnd9YvkJA5 z1T61eZhtvdg5N3Wnooe4H4PRNoi2Rc6xiAtIYJptzT2/3w6jPL1RxoXZ6JHXtIWh72A MS+DpAuzSyqUYfeErwNp9vvdqL/e+1Ki4bBn6HxopEOSk587xu70vshX5pcpQEgz8IFS 9f/kFfzOWx5pu9UIjvCExQRhgoFkMYwzZ8hkG7YSc+fINi52oESfa46C9j0uj0w9rncl h+PIn9JNINgyvLejG58JWpeIrQB0zEZZSGHshCVo9QBDHtFGwYytKMk6LOS1FbdLNTN7 l7oQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlIfbsMQNK595j+/q7nCzS3F6PSxdeJ8z5zViPlsgEEP4XgF9VGgt4AxlXAY4U4LE5YXzAQ0MMABlkMKQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.229.131 with SMTP id c125mr3995425wmh.97.1474657359614; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: simon.duquennoy@gmail.com
Received: by 10.80.153.110 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87shsqbg9x.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
References: <CADJ9OA_B_fGy3xu3Fr_zWDuxcdP1-3bx7j6DA3pxoUgXpJ3QAA@mail.gmail.com> <87shsqbg9x.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:02:39 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7BE5z0_zBHqnX9jfOk-2xcLOzNg
Message-ID: <CAMxvJtJhnFgDcUFs_=btbFuzV0mCZqE_5RTPrqSiX4h6D8GhfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/XM3egq6ku722UnZy9LCmGmNMDJY>
Cc: 6tisch@ietf.org, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watteyne@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to be suboptimal
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:02:44 -0000
> I suspect the main reason is that several slotframe schedules of > different lengths can be active at the same time in one network. > Keeping a separate ASFN for each schedule would require a lot of work. > With the standard you also get the guarantee that slots with different channel offsets will never collide, regardless of the slotframe and node they belong to.
- [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to be s… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to … Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to … Dale R. Worley
- Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to … Simon Duquennoy
- Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to … Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to … Tero Kivinen
- Re: [6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to … Thomas Watteyne