Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
Kris Pister <ksjp@berkeley.edu> Mon, 22 July 2013 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <ksjp@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F11D11E8152 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N4m2+Y01PgPq for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27ED911E814E for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id cr7so1244654qab.1 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=0mY4RnNyhY9QvlAEdxbeUUW8IurE22QVLkxBrA5pjGc=; b=D2P+1SCNKL5vR7AF3inb8ytfDc6uyrk4swvQq2CPxzfAYb5ThKEhqfxjf5PzWtojFH zXcntbs0+PtLpq5Box6B5ZufQSyGnByql8ApcYNpaOhZsOAVPeDxdbtUKHXRrhIK5z4/ MYLDJg4T/3h5SX1YNXKvdPQX1CNVoAuzEVo2hiAZcmtT/MKm7WmjVTNWM/W1qA46Axje aN8te6hMWolxSEq4f8VTv5d5z2PXh2bcraFBtQz+PotFBsffaVTiIPKRmo9UmjvougCK KD4OICAKBqi6aftsu6D2k3U4IH3LIWugdvB9rczYeWeEMX8kd4QMEQLY8ljFrtk2UKeN 3oVg==
X-Received: by 10.49.42.98 with SMTP id n2mr34272648qel.31.1374525684487; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.2.146.25] ([192.80.55.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm40482407qez.2.2013.07.22.13.41.22 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51ED992E.5060806@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:42:22 -0700
From: Kris Pister <ksjp@berkeley.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84138114A@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84138114A@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050509070805060400020608"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkhCeIjJ36LHQYE4uYm02Hsa70ozL38dRdP3OY62r4a3gTt1+vXc1jaZZkeI04qeolMJy1G
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:41:30 -0000
If we have a compelling reason to talk about tunneling, I have no objection to bringing it into the discussion. ksjp On 7/22/2013 1:15 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > Hello Kris: > > I agree with the goal as you spell it. Now, do you mean we should omit > the tunneling facility? Or should we be less specific on what it's for? > > Pascal > > *From:*6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kris Pister > *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 21:14 > *To:* 6tsch@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides > > Pascal et al. - > I have no doubt that with a lot of effort we could overcome the > technical challenges of making this work. > Unfortunately, I don't think that you will find a single company that > would implement it. > If our goal is to impact the state of wireless for industrial process > automation, we are doomed. > Fortunately, that's not our goal. Our goal is to take what has been > learned there, and give it to the > rest of the world. Why complicate the process by insisting on > bringing in WirelessHART and ISA100 again? Don't we have enough hard > problems to work on already? > > ksjp > > On 7/22/2013 11:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > Hi Qin: > > We do not intend to enable interop between foreign protocols but > just to tunnel, meaning that we expect the same protocol on both ends. > > 6top would just be a G MPLS pipe for that protocol; that's the > whole point in the MP of G MPLS, right? > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > *From:*Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu] > *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 19:30 > *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > *Cc:* Alfredo Grieco; 6TSCH > *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides > > Hi Pascal, > > According to my understanding, wirelessHart or ISA100.11a devices > have to implement their entire stack, including their own > Application layer, network layer, DL, and 802.15.4 MAC and PHY. > So, if we want to use 6top to forward the packets from > WirelessHart and ISA100.11a, we have to investigate the method to > merge 6top with the two standards, and to replace lower layers of > the two standards. Do we really want to do it? > > Thus, instead of saying that 6top targets building a common base > for different standards (including wirelessHart and ISA100.11a), I > would like to focus on IPv6 context, and use the two standards as > facts to show the advantage of TSCH. > > How do you think? > > Qin > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Dear Qin: > > In this case we need to align time slots that are computed by 2 > protocols to make a single track. Computing those tracks would be > PCE work, and agreeing to collate path segments is the sort of > things PCEs do. > > I think it's OK. It's not really impacting the mote. What's > impacting the mote is the capability to talk both protocols to > forward packets and how it will do that (ona same interface?) is TBD. > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > *From:*6tsch-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org> > [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org>] > *On Behalf Of *Qin Wang > *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 17:35 > *To:* Alfredo Grieco > *Cc:* 6TSCH > *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides > > Alfredo, > > It may be too heavy to coordinate with WirelessHart and > ISA100.11a. Should we commit it? I think we need to discuss the > problem in ML. How do you think? > > Qin > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Alfredo Grieco > <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Qin, > > There is also this further clarification in 6.1.2 > > "In that mode, the PCE may coordinate with a WirelessHART Network > Manager or > an ISA100.11a System Manager in order to specify the flows that > are to be > transported transparently over the Track." > > I was referring to this last one. > > What do you think ? > > Cheers and thanks > > Al > > > Da: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu > <mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>] > > Inviato: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:20 PM > A: Alfredo Grieco > Cc: 6TSCH > > Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides > > Hi Alfredo, > > Thank you very much for finding it out, i.e. in section 6, > > "As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC (and Layer 2 security) accepts a > frame, that frame can be switched regardless of the protocol, > whether this > is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN fragment, or a frame from an > alternate protocol > such as WirelessHART of ISA100.11a." > > But, from implementation point of view, it seems to me that the NW > layer of > WirelessHART or ISA100.11a has to call the commands of 6top, > instead of the > primitives of DL layer defined in WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. I'm > not sure > if it works for WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. > > Thought? > Qin > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Alfredo Grieco > <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> > wrote: > Hi Qin, > > Sorry for the late reply. > > If you go to Sec. 6 of the architecture draft > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6tsch-architecture-02) we > explicitly say that ISA100.11a and WiHart could interoperate with > a 6tsch > lln. > > In this sense, we move from competing to interoperating standards. > > Does it sound for you ? > > Thanks > > Alfredo > > > > > > Da: Qin Wang [mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu > <mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>] > Inviato: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:35 PM > A: Alfredo Grieco > Cc: Thomas Watteyne; 6TSCH; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides > > Alfredo, > > Thank you for clarifying. But, I'm still confused. Maybe I missed > something. > Can you tell me what you mean by "competing stds"? > > Thanks! > Qin > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Alfredo Grieco > <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> > wrote: > Qin, > > I was saying the opposite: 6top goes on top. > > There was a nice picture shown by Pascal in one of our weekly call > several > weeks ago. > > Of course, the point you raise about ipv6 taking advantage from > tsch is ok. > > Cheers > > Alfredo > > On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote: > Hi Alfredo, > > I don't think WirelessHart and ISA100.11a can be added on top of > 6top. The > reasons are: > > (1) They have their own and different protocol stacks. > (2) They use Timeslotted channel hopping technology, but not > IEEE802.15.4e > TSCH. > > So, according to my understanding, the problem is how IPv6 > protocol stack > can take advantage of TSCH, which has been proven good and > standardized by > IEEE. > > Thought? > Qin > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Alfredo Grieco > <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com <mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> > wrote: > Dear Qin, > > As far as I remember, it could be also possible to embrace other > technologies by adding on top of them 6top. No need to replace but > include > other technologies. > > Cheers > > Alfredo > > > On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote: > Hi Thomas and All, > > The first item of problems in the slide is: > > Customer dissatisfaction with competing stds > -> no device interop, double opex > -> lack of common network management > What does "competing stds" refer to? Referring to existing > standards like > WirelessHart, ISA100.11a, or something else? From the statement, > it may be > derived that 6TSCH WG wants to create a common standard to replace the > competing standards. It is not our objective, right? > Maybe I misunderstand something. Please point out. > Thanks > Qin > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Watteyne > <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu <mailto:watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>> > wrote: > All, > > FYI, I pushed the 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides we > modified live > during the webex onto the repo. You'll find the latest version at > https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/src/master/130730_ietf-87_berlin > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > 6tsch mailing list > 6tsch@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6tsch mailing list > > 6tsch@ietf.org <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch >
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Kris Pister
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Kris Pister
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- [6tsch] R: 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- [6tsch] R: 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- [6tsch] R: 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Thomas Watteyne