[6tisch] Uni-directional vs Bi-directional asymmetric links

"Satish Anamalamudi (Satish Anamalamudi)" <satish.anamalamudi@huawei.com> Fri, 26 February 2016 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <satish.anamalamudi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18F71A1AAE for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:45:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SV0rp80aGWfz for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE3D91A1B3E for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 01:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CFA35852; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:45:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMI412-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:45:44 +0000
Received: from SZXEMI507-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by szxemi412-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:44:50 +0800
From: "Satish Anamalamudi (Satish Anamalamudi)" <satish.anamalamudi@huawei.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Uni-directional vs Bi-directional asymmetric links
Thread-Index: AdFwelV/J/dOxgIhRruKLZVv/6zimw==
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:44:49 +0000
Message-ID: <BC1182E86737A7438C540E3B93DB7E518C024D@SZXEMI507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.56D01ECB.0008, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 0db220d67a6ecc5e9653bd464bdc9e8a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/glLXNjW0xUfHpLwtLG6v-uBjgHI>
Subject: [6tisch] Uni-directional vs Bi-directional asymmetric links
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
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" <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, 26 Feb 2016 09:45:51 -0000

Hello everyone,

[draft-thubert-roll-asymlink-02] describes about multi-DODAG for "Bi-directional asymmetric links":  A link is asymmetric if it is bi-directional, yet exhibits major differences in link characteristics for both directions. 

Is this assumption valid to 6TiSCH or need strictly uni-directional asymmetrical links? As of my understanding, on a uni-directional asymmetrical link, node A can directly transmit to B, but B is unable to transmit anything to A directly.

With Regards,