Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides

[Kris Pister <[e-mail]>]

If we have a compelling reason to talk about tunneling, I have no 
objection to bringing it into the discussion.

ksjp

On 7/22/2013 1:15 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
> Hello Kris:
>
> I agree with the goal as you spell it. Now, do you mean we should omit 
> the tunneling facility? Or should we be less specific on what it's for?
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Kris Pister
> *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 21:14
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
> Pascal et al. -
>   I have no doubt that with a lot of effort we could overcome the 
> technical challenges of making this work.
> Unfortunately, I don't think that you will find a single company that 
> would implement it.
> If our goal is to impact the state of wireless for industrial process 
> automation, we are doomed.
> Fortunately, that's not our goal.  Our goal is to take what has been 
> learned there, and give it to the
> rest of the world.  Why complicate the process by insisting on 
> bringing in WirelessHART and ISA100 again?  Don't we have enough hard 
> problems to work on already?
>
> ksjp
>
> On 7/22/2013 11:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
>     Hi Qin:
>
>     We do not intend to enable interop between foreign protocols but
>     just to tunnel, meaning that we expect the same protocol on both ends.
>
>     6top would just be a G MPLS pipe for that protocol; that's the
>     whole point in the MP of G MPLS, right?
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Pascal
>
>     *From:*Qin Wang [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 19:30
>     *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>     *Cc:* Alfredo Grieco; 6TSCH
>     *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
>     Hi Pascal,
>
>     According to my understanding, wirelessHart or ISA100.11a devices
>     have to implement their entire stack, including their own
>     Application layer, network layer, DL, and 802.15.4 MAC and PHY.
>     So,  if we want to use 6top to forward the packets from
>     WirelessHart and ISA100.11a, we have to investigate the method to
>     merge 6top with the two standards, and to replace lower layers of
>     the two standards. Do we really want to do it?
>
>     Thus, instead of saying that 6top targets building a common base
>     for different standards (including wirelessHart and ISA100.11a), I
>     would like to focus on IPv6 context, and use the two standards as
>     facts to show the advantage of TSCH.
>
>     How do you think?
>
>     Qin
>
>     On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Qin:
>
>     In this case we need to align time slots that are computed by 2
>     protocols to make a single track. Computing those tracks would be
>     PCE work, and agreeing to collate path segments is the sort of
>     things PCEs do.
>
>     I think it's OK. It's not really impacting the mote. What's
>     impacting the mote is the capability to talk both protocols to
>     forward packets and how it will do that (ona same interface?) is TBD.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Pascal
>
>     *From:*[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     *On Behalf Of *Qin Wang
>     *Sent:* lundi 22 juillet 2013 17:35
>     *To:* Alfredo Grieco
>     *Cc:* 6TSCH
>     *Subject:* Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
>     Alfredo,
>
>     It may be too heavy to coordinate with WirelessHart and
>     ISA100.11a. Should we commit it? I think we need to discuss the
>     problem in ML. How do you think?
>
>     Qin
>
>     On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Alfredo Grieco
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Qin,
>
>     There is also this further clarification in 6.1.2
>
>     "In that mode, the PCE may coordinate with a WirelessHART Network
>     Manager or
>     an ISA100.11a System Manager in order to specify the flows that
>     are to be
>     transported transparently over the Track."
>
>     I was referring to this last one.
>
>     What do you think ?
>
>     Cheers and thanks
>
>     Al
>
>
>     Da: Qin Wang [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>
>     Inviato: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:20 PM
>     A: Alfredo Grieco
>     Cc: 6TSCH
>
>     Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
>     Hi Alfredo,
>
>     Thank you very much for finding it out, i.e. in section 6,
>
>     "As a result, as long as the TSCH MAC (and Layer 2 security) accepts a
>     frame, that frame can be switched regardless of the protocol,
>     whether this
>     is an IPv6 packet, a 6LoWPAN fragment, or a frame from an
>     alternate protocol
>     such as WirelessHART of ISA100.11a."
>
>     But, from implementation point of view, it seems to me that the NW
>     layer of
>     WirelessHART or ISA100.11a has to call the commands of 6top,
>     instead of the
>     primitives of DL layer defined in WirelessHart and ISA100.11a. I'm
>     not sure
>     if it works for WirelessHart and ISA100.11a.
>
>     Thought?
>     Qin
>
>
>
>     On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Alfredo Grieco
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>     Hi Qin,
>
>     Sorry for the late reply.
>
>     If you go to Sec. 6 of the architecture draft
>     (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6tsch-architecture-02) we
>     explicitly say that ISA100.11a and WiHart could interoperate with
>     a 6tsch
>     lln.
>
>     In this sense, we move from competing to interoperating standards.
>
>     Does it sound for you ?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Alfredo
>
>
>
>
>
>     Da: Qin Wang [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     Inviato: Friday, July 19, 2013 10:35 PM
>     A: Alfredo Grieco
>     Cc: Thomas Watteyne; 6TSCH; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>     Oggetto: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
>
>     Alfredo,
>
>     Thank you for clarifying. But, I'm still confused. Maybe I missed
>     something.
>     Can you tell me what you mean by "competing stds"?
>
>     Thanks!
>     Qin
>
>     On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Alfredo Grieco
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>     Qin,
>
>     I was saying the opposite: 6top goes on top.
>
>     There was a nice picture shown by Pascal in one of our weekly call
>     several
>     weeks ago.
>
>     Of course, the point you raise about ipv6 taking advantage from
>     tsch is ok.
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Alfredo
>
>     On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
>     Hi Alfredo,
>
>     I don't think  WirelessHart and ISA100.11a can be added on top of
>     6top. The
>     reasons are:
>
>     (1) They have their own and different protocol stacks.
>     (2) They use Timeslotted channel hopping technology, but not
>     IEEE802.15.4e
>     TSCH.
>
>     So, according to my understanding, the problem is how IPv6
>     protocol stack
>     can take advantage of TSCH, which has been proven good and
>     standardized by
>     IEEE.
>
>     Thought?
>     Qin
>
>
>     On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Alfredo Grieco
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>     Dear Qin,
>
>     As far as I remember, it could be also possible to embrace other
>     technologies by adding on top of them 6top. No need to replace but
>     include
>     other technologies.
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Alfredo
>
>
>     On Friday, July 19, 2013, Qin Wang wrote:
>     Hi Thomas and All,
>
>     The first item of problems in the slide is:
>
>           Customer dissatisfaction with competing stds
>           -> no device interop, double opex
>           -> lack of common network management
>     What does "competing stds" refer to? Referring to existing
>     standards like
>     WirelessHart, ISA100.11a, or something else? From the statement,
>     it may be
>     derived that 6TSCH WG wants to create a common standard to replace the
>     competing standards. It is not our objective, right?
>     Maybe I misunderstand something. Please point out.
>     Thanks
>     Qin
>
>
>
>
>
>     On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Watteyne
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>     All,
>
>     FYI, I pushed the 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides we
>     modified live
>     during the webex onto the repo. You'll find the latest version at
>     https://bitbucket.org/6tsch/meetings/src/master/130730_ietf-87_berlin
>
>     Thomas
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     6tsch mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     6tsch mailing list
>
>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>