[6tisch] The channel hopping scheme seems to be suboptimal

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 22 September 2016 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 BA86212B729 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 38tOP3jWrjSY for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:37]) (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 80EB812D95A for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.103]) by resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id n5AHbZYKh2FGMn5AHbGJ8r; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:39:53 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.100.16.189]) by resomta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id n5AGbfIshREtHn5AHb17JZ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:39:53 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u8MEdqjE021039 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:39:52 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u8MEdqN5021036; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:39:52 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:39:51 -0400
Message-ID: <87bmzgf16w.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfP5YTT0dcS54tbGy9jw4+8L7D2EuNElCVbGBRnkh8zhAJIK8sMBxFqK2lSoQGVrQVSoYQa/TkuNqeZr7/g8QB1HujWsBzlQjvWWSLhp/f26FxuDeLa+a BblkG2NqgNT7gSKX1PeUEGktOF5/ox+1eKZUu9xvhD0gU/N9wqGeTa/pJbZFXXOWutZ4GUg66XdvjA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/_G1OqNzQNVaNPo7VaRjpG2CD0DQ>
Subject: [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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:50:13 -0000

Pardon me, I'm new here, but I was wondering why the channel hopping
scheme is defined the way it is.  Currently, RFC 7554 notes that the
channel selected for a transmission by a node is:

   frequency = frequency_table [ (ASN + channelOffset) mod nFreq ]

where channelOffset is a set value for this node to use in this slot of
the slotframe cycle, frequency_table is a set array of frequencies, and
nFreq is the size of frequency_table.

The question I have is with ASN, the "absolute slot number".  RFC 7554
states that it increments one for each slot time, so that as a
particular slotframe slot recurs, the ASN is incremented by the number
of slots in the slotframe.

The result is that to ensure that each node's transmissions cycle
through all the frequencies in the frequency_table, the length of the
slotframe needs to be relatively prime to nFreq:

   A way of ensuring communication happens on all available frequencies
   is to set the number of timeslots in a slotframe to a prime number.

My question is that if ASN was redefined to be a counter of slotframes
rather than of slots, then each node would cycle through all the
frequencies regardless of the size of the slotframe, because each node's
frequency index would advance 1 with each slotframe rather than
(slotframe_size mod nFreq).

This alternative is fairly obvious, so there must be a known reason why
it isn't desirable.

Dale