Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Chonggang

Each RPL instance defines a topology in which some routers peer with others. The roots and/or OF may be different.
The question is whether all the L3 traffic goes on the same bundle pair regardless of the instance. At this moment it is.
Now we could hav different bundles for each instance.
There’s value in both ways, sharing saves resources by aggregating, isolating provides protection by isolating different instances in different cells…

Pascal

From: Wang, Chonggang [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: mercredi 27 avril 2016 23:12
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; Qin Wang <[e-mail]>; Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[e-mail]>; Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]>; Turner, Randy <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft

Hi Pascal,

Would you please elaborate “should we have different bundles for different RPL instance?”? I did not quite get the question.

Thanks,
Chonggang



[cid:[e-mail]49FB0]

[cid:[e-mail]49FB0]<http://idcc.me/1qPHqfv>

This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.


From: 6tisch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:55 AM
To: Qin Wang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Turner, Randy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft

Hello Qin

It takes at least 2 bundles to create what a mote sees as a link, one in each direction.
Now, should we have different bundles for different RPL instance?

Pascal

From: 6tisch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wang
Sent: mercredi 27 avril 2016 16:58
To: Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Thomas Watteyne <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Turner, Randy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft

Hi all,

Do we really need the term "Link"? IMO, "Link" in 6TiSCH is same as Bundle. Right?

Thanks
Qin

On Friday, April 22, 2016 9:07 AM, Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Randy, sorry for my late  answer.
Thomas, thanks for jumping into it.

Sure, the typos will be fixed in the next  version  ;)

About the definition of “link” I have to say this is  a  kind of endless story…
We have been discussed a lot in the past how to define it, how to make  clear that the concept for 6TiSCH is different from classical  IETF  link  definition,  but it seems we created  confusion, by putting  too  much information all together into  it.

Thomas’s suggestion could  simplify the problem.
The  link in fact  exists when the two neighbors have at least  one  cell to exchange pkts.

Thank you.
Maria Rita


From: 6tisch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas Watteyne
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Turner, Randy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft

Randy,

I'll let Maria Rita comment about the typos, I assume it's just a matter to spinning the doc.

About "link", I went back to read the draft. The following definition...

------------------
A communication facility or medium over which nodes can
communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer
immediately below IP.  Thus, the IETF parlance for the
term "Link" is adopted, as opposed to the IEEE802.15.4e
terminology.  In the context of the 6TiSCH architecture,
which applies to Low Power Lossy Networks (LLNs), an IPv6
subnet is usually not congruent to a single link and
techniques such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Proxying are
used to achieve reachability within the multilink subnet.
A link is distinct from a track.  In fact, link local
addresses are not expected to be used over a track for
end to end communication.  Finally, from the Layer 3
perspective (where the inner complexities of TSCH
operations are hidden to enable classical IP routing and
forwarding), a single radio interface may be seen as a
number of Links with different capabilities for unicast
or multicast services.
---------------

... is confusing, to say the least. IMO, it touches on almost all of the IETF work (talking about ND proxy, mutiling subnets, tracks in the definition of link ?!?) , is incredibly confusing, and as a result carries 0 information. What about

A link exists between two nodes when at least one cell is schedule between them.

Thomas




On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Turner, Randy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Guys,

I had a couple of comments on the recent -07 terminology draft:

Deterministic Network - "A deterministic network can allocates..." should be "A deterministic network can allocate..."

"6top Data Convey Model" - Model describing how the 6top adaptation layer...<snip>
Is this really an adaptation layer? - In the IETF, the term "adaptation layer" has come to mean something different

6p Transaction - "Part of the 6top Protocol, in consists in" should probably be "...consists of"

"Bundle" - typo "usining" should be "using"

"Link" – When I read this description, it sounds similar to an interference domain - should the difference (if any) be spelled out or distinguished ? Or am I the only one that sees this similarity?

Thanks!
R.

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch



--
_______________________________________

Thomas Watteyne, PhD
Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria
Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech
Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN
Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH

www.thomaswatteyne.com<http://www.thomaswatteyne.com/>
_______________________________________

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch