IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>
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 5BD1511E81AC for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 XOfJ6Mz2QARg for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A345411E80DF for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fh20so1961556lab.2 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fOzwqOpageCnbSNcQ90Xxe1K3Q7PCe8j+ZMknJXD3L0=; b=TLd4BFW8qjENpWlVB5vI8s6ahutTL4+Tx3T8RjK2fS7gS+PgQiJ59Z4NvLEvM9evNp mOrueUVESa6swrtvhjf3cw2ZUOSw1D8oLE0fnbhdBXOfPdKflmux62Rtqktnk9oNiEsu DrsqjkGVyMTYku5yaK0tTGDdleNUmBBSEdmu9JCP/XAGkhc8u85Fi0v87UuXu+jP4f4I 1XpxfPEJ4s85vrb0QzyOQj8iPDqW5NYiSdcOsQdUxxeRX4oLw/U509xwy704Z+eA1ojP JjRzxfL5/EYETDpZQ017+7EC9+OtkpKWMWB6GEPdj3nxR3EGXurxP8rCSQbDNoWNoUjF g1+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.28.66 with SMTP id z2mr8089845lag.5.1374265299900; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.27.166 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAzoce7AoLW14=BYpN5Fx4SLN_bmjiAxoOzJoRyxrPu5z_NOdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJ9OA9GpdK8BCONDVNZ-ay1d+4Jnr_ea3OKEK_X6pKubt2vEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzoce5jHS16QsyE0Gs5CUQca6-oukOjLs6a1NZb=ckM7JfjOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4EQiO47BeCj3ihs_j5CM4sU5NJjvJuvx7XsBQvGNadJjr6HA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzoce7AoLW14=BYpN5Fx4SLN_bmjiAxoOzJoRyxrPu5z_NOdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:21:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM4EQiM2mVGHSyk+C40q_WLf0zkrkxPxunXSBhDhntGqF5y=dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>
To: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c3d40720cc04e1e3132a
Cc: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>, "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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" <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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:21:50 -0000

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 <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'alfredo.grieco@gmail.com');>
> > 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 <
>>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> 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
>>>> 6tsch@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email