Re: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Statistics for SFs and Relocation

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Fri, 04 March 2016 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EE51B3695 for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 03:21:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CgYf43L6SMXN for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 03:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99CAA1B36A5 for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 03:21:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11522; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1457090486; x=1458300086; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=pYwiM/7b3XUK6vBw4C3GIwkQs0dznKHgitUnwEgRJqo=; b=e+E4Pw1o2QMMA5+kzQzJUwOpMj9WPhKqeMXb6vGz+CM47pVZSSdTKlaF WnakKvoEWJ2QVjbSfYnloaAgIg6wNBJv4OaFpuTsnc9RGLcdGlKFt74R5 2WPl6Q3SogAQb1/ZaZ8X8AiaH33YeiWmynujzAmRlwz+MSCFIqiYvt8r2 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,535,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="82316050"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Mar 2016 11:21:25 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u24BLPmK022431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:21:25 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 05:21:24 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 05:21:24 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Statistics for SFs and Relocation
Thread-Index: AQHRdYKW3XU+P91voEe6jMdJfWYjMZ9JJDPQ
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:21:18 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:20:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5cc338fe6226453c9d94d234de58f5e8XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Statistics for SFs and Relocation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:21:29 -0000

I’d support that, Diego

If the visible operation of the device depends on it and that influences the interoperation, it is good to document a base way of doing things.



From: 6tisch [] On Behalf Of Prof. Diego Dujovne
Sent: jeudi 3 mars 2016 20:26
Subject: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Statistics for SFs and Relocation

Dear all,
           Given the requirements to build SFs exposed
in the 6tisch sublayer draft, there is no specification
on how to obtain the statistics and calculate and build
the metrics used to decide when to add/delete/relocate
cells. The draft asks only for the set of rules.
          SF0 defines an algorithm using specific values
as thresholds and rules for adding/removing cells and
uses PDR and a simple decision rule to decide which
cell to relocate.  However, this may not be the case
for the other (possibly more complex) SFs, where
metrics based on statistics could be included.
           Shall we include a section on the description
of how to calculate the specific statistics used on each
SF, or just leave this out of scope to the implementer?
My point of view is that statistics should be specified
in order to be able to interoperate between different
implementations of the same SF.
            What do you think?
            Thank you,
                                  Diego Dujovne

Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP<>
(56 2) 676 8125