Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P
Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@uoc.edu> Fri, 02 December 2016 04:11 UTC
Return-Path: <xvilajosana@uoc.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 2729912950F for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:11:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=uoc.edu
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 nj8MDjXiqLdH for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (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 EFC50129437 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j65so462280585iof.0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:11:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uoc.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aAWe9e8fMPOPL7BkC1c+InCevnSjQ7FpPFDEX6GjMUM=; b=ZWankwjOsiGscLLGGRop2mClf5jJARwng+KcH21IjySMELe9Fz8W7Zd1s5iSTh2K4Z 9Gr75n7wpfiw5risi5XOMc1wFQt5VQeV/eKy8WNpm0n76WLtQJZjXW9HNQkAUy66GK/z CXotDAb4UG101nLN2jHKN+pd+Kt7x/Fb71wTU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aAWe9e8fMPOPL7BkC1c+InCevnSjQ7FpPFDEX6GjMUM=; b=a/rIBgHgvIk3nAXt8UnDEGs6CvznTyY2wnzxN41FkwqvuV/w6YjR72Kxqq9bBiNC1h 5M5eUi6VI0w5ieQW7/VrCWahn6fld4InJ3hmTQaqkjMnF9CcNoX9WGO4DK0oA04StljT 3ivsdq/3U510AgR4ct91qjtapLMThvSpsOvijDLsEjxGk8DiC+X7mylk0W6eXuG5IGIc wWfjG31PoYaxKhdxrl/DRjIivndVqMl1HbQ5Opz7sF+tch8lEqNKMd8JY/qPYzTZxXJO Pp63QtNODEOGjO/0XsI/MbixlotJtIgFFgU9USMJrg5aG2E3LyD2txuu+yFjIDgpxSA7 SeUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02llh+zRjm3YHNiojClkPDZJLEwvMetvng5RDABzr6kYrRbEFmzsr2vsFpeuzQhFgpmA/fBgzsJa+egd8hG
X-Received: by 10.36.148.84 with SMTP id j81mr979958ite.35.1480651877836; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:11:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.4.142 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:11:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <263792295.181304.1480628124692.JavaMail.root@canet.uoc.es>
References: <1739694970.195512.1479755120596.JavaMail.root@vilafranca.uoc.es> <CAC9+vPiG9ZqziO8ktpuwJrc4YcRQ7Wj1e+ZciNHmZvUE9JafPw@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA-BZrQHEX9yeSoj3_8p-NOoqq0g8o=6hZ_JS-53b+vNYQ@mail.gmail.com> <e431f7a2-48bb-0605-5a90-bdb0cc134322@toshiba.co.jp> <1833275349.763606.1479942137593@mail.yahoo.com> <b19ebf9e-f175-f871-3653-5c89f7201a6c@toshiba.co.jp> <417706060.2950304.1480455632701@mail.yahoo.com> <c1dcec38-7d34-a753-0e33-6a6e6b7582ff@toshiba.co.jp> <1761859297.3541335.1480523975213@mail.yahoo.com> <e6fd1612-6239-16d7-acad-6f6fdca05db9@toshiba.co.jp> <1892811491.4637219.1480625129906@mail.yahoo.com> <263792295.181304.1480628124692.JavaMail.root@canet.uoc.es>
From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:11:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC9+vPi=CGSFUX9-k-wsuL0WfoGOm8dgjtXA-nKAJX6KOZS+_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0ef0e237020b0542a5211f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/kxy71CujztTG_ZOcTklfTqZ183Q>
Cc: tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P
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, 02 Dec 2016 04:11:22 -0000
HI Yatch, thanks for your comments. Could you please summarize how the timeout will work in the 2 and 3 step transactions: I see it in this way: 2-step A sends to B an ADD, if A packet is lost, B will never realize and A will timeout. Idem if B response fails ( A timeouts) 3-step A sends to B an ADD. If A packet is lost, B never realizes and A timeouts. If B receives the packet but Response fails. A timeouts as before and B timeouts for not receiving the confirmation. If the confirmation is lost B timeouts and A should cancel or timeout because it does not receive ACK at the MAC layer. Is this your suggestion? What if A resets? how you now at B that A has reset? do this require a STATUS call from A to B when it join the network again? thanks! X 2016-12-01 22:34 GMT+01:00 Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp>: > Hi Qin, > > I think nodeA=>nodeB request process includes two parts, one is Tx >> from nodeA to nodeB, another part is for nodeB's MAC to process the >> Request message. As you mentioned, failure of the first part can be >> identified by mac-ack from nodeB, but not the second part. Right? >> > > Yes, that's right! I believe we are now on the same page about the > approach using timeout. > > In this sense, ability to identify failure without inconsistency > occurred in the second part is the only advantage of the generation > counter, which is achieved by consuming four bits in every 6P packet > and keeping inter-transaction state for every neighbor. In my opinion, > this advantage is a little thing for the price to pay... > > Best, > Yatch > > > On 2016/12/01 21:45, Qin Wang wrote: > >> Hi Yasuyuki, >> >> I think nodeA=>nodeB request process includes two parts, one is Tx from >> nodeA to nodeB, another part is for nodeB's MAC to process the Request >> message. As you mentioned, failure of the first part can be identified by >> mac-ack from nodeB, but not the second part. Right? >> >> Thanks >> Qin >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:49 PM, Yasuyuki Tanaka < >> yasuyuki9.tanaka@toshiba.co.jp> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks, Qin. >> >> (1) Timeout in nodeA can be triggered either by failure in >>> nodeA=>nodeB request process and by failure in nodeB=>nodeA response >>> process (i.e the process in above example). nodeA cannot tell exact >>> reason for a event of Timeout by itself. In another word, nodeA >>> cannot tell there is a inconsistency between its schedule and >>> nodeB's schedule just based on Timeout. Right? >>> >> >> That is right; failure in the nodeA=>nodeB case is what I called >> "false positive." But, nodeA could lower the possibility of false >> positive by using MAC-layer ACK, implementation efforts. If nodeA >> doesn't receive a MAC-layer ACK to its request frame, nodeA can >> consider the transaction as having failed without inconsistency. >> >> (2) sending CLEAR, or STATUS, or LIST usually happens after a >>> inconsistency is found, and the function of generation counter is >>> exactly to find out the inconsistency. Make sense? >>> >> >> I'd say the generation counter is not the only way to detect >> inconsistency. STATUS/LIST could detect it as well, although >> STATUS/LIST always fails with RC_ERR_GEN in a case of inconsistency >> according to the latest draft. >> >> The generation counter can find inconsistency as you mentioned, but it >> has disadvantages: >> >> - It needs 6P to keep per-neighbor states (ignore SeqNum for now) even >> when there is no ongoing transaction. >> >> - It cannot detect inconsistency until a subsequent transaction; it >> may take a long time. >> >> The reactive approach using timeout doesn't have such disadvantages; >> furthermore, it's simpler than the the schedule generation management, >> in my opinion. >> >> I still cannot see why the generation management at 6P is really needed... >> >> Best, >> Yatch >> > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > 6tisch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > -- Dr. Xavier Vilajosana Guillén Research Professor Wireless Networks Research Group Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Universitat Oberta de Catalunya +34 646 633 681| xvilajosana@uoc.edu | Skype: xvilajosana http://xvilajosana.org http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu/ Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 5. Edifici B3 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
- [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Xavi Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Qin Wang
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Xavi Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tisch] Handling Inconsistent Allocation in … Yasuyuki Tanaka