Re: [6tsch] Zero Objective Function discussion

Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> Tue, 10 September 2013 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <xvilajosana@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 674A921F918C for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 YpmSYlt7LpZD for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61F821F90CC for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x10so8005463pdj.29 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xnTkmsi1gUpKDFhCOBCerDHSHS1438h3wvFZEQziUzw=; b=D/9mKayoQzS1HqmgQAD6Gd2t39Hw2rUGDjSYet8LoHq5ukwx/BzG0rHR80ktUGNT8F blqb6tCn5EDFwXl2fdpFwOeWkLR9lZOpSjClOcgQlR9y/rHZnzRulsydnIJ5eQuC7E0E OPp0UCJuKFjniKtukPG/HxoPd4lbEo5IhRsBMDn91PCKOMe1ByTQ4kxA4eCDl/xVqhuu vyheAiRvQfYhBe6l/07fNd0KwhTWIirprS104ybn1erL2XPkvFAKAS/xbnI5k26Z5Cy3 rkY1/kEE/PUVankJKFIdcGzcOH7/p0tOZF7g/G8ld7xZmOPEcc6/A0Fg70+9j177nT54 DVWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm+xvh4mmu+4sPmrwepAJx8zHShAEg2eed5sjqmXwDL0X9fTQRN8lUvEgvfyfnsBC/k3kB8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.162.136 with SMTP id ya8mr15921324pab.110.1378835550259; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.34.44 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84145CF1E@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <CADJ9OA8vNGCmy-2X901pqnmZuSCQ1d=GPeHPE=SD25JJkfwGgw@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD84145CF1E@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:52:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CALEMV4aaQgqB9q7ht5XeySmhUOWUHtu2x9phkw3N=r3xqt5Rvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86e4242d5a2f04e60b2be7
Cc: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] Zero Objective Function discussion
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:52:38 -0000

Hi all,

after some study I agree that we can use the RFC6552 in the minimal 6TiSCH
configuration. I would like to call for approval or more input from others
before I consolidate the text in the draft.

I put here an example following Pascal suggestion:

Given

Rf = 1
Sp = 2* ETX
Sr = 0
minHopRankIncrease = 256 (default in RPL)
ETX=(xmit/ack)

r(n) = r(p) + rank_increase
rank_increase= (Rf*Sp + Sr) * minHopRankIncrease
rank_increase=(512*xmit/ack)


if we take 5 hops (95 are supported) network and r(0)=0 and xmit=100 and
ack=75 for all nodes

r(1)=r(0)+rank_increase = 0+683 with f=0
r(2)=r(1)+683=1366 with f=1
r(3)=r(2)+683=2049 with f=2
r(4)=r(3)+683=2732 with f=2
r(5)=r(4)+683=3415 with f=3
...
etc...

so f is monotonically increasing and the rank function enables more than
enough hops.

Please provide feedback.

cheers!
Xavi