Re: [6tsch] Is generic management method possible?

Qin,

I fully agree that being able to reuse some formats in the distributed case
is important. The question about the exact protocol to use for negotiation
between neighbors in the distributed case is a very broad one. It is too
early to discuss that. We can, however, keep the distributed case in mind
when proposing formats.

Thomas

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> In the previous discussion, we have figured out 5 control flows between
> PCE and node, which were expressed in the context of centralized case.
> Obviously, it will be great if the messages in those identified control
> flows are generic, suitable for both centralized and distributed case.
> During last Friday's call, it was mentioned but is still a open issue. I
> propose to continue the discussion in this thread.
>
> Comparing the role of PCE in centralized case,I think RSVP/NSIS will play
> similar role in distributed case. In another word, instead of exchanging
> message with PCE via a network, 6top Management Entity will exchange
> message with a Reservation Entity like RSVP/NSIS inside the same node. The
> question is if it is possible to use same design in the two cases.  (I'm
> not expert on RSVP and NSIS, please input your opinions).
>
> Firstly, I think the contents of messages in the centralized and
> distributed case are overlap in a big portion. For example, both of them
> need to send action flow, both of them need statistics data, and so on.
>
> Secondly, in terms of Message Exchange, the two cases are similar. The
> only difference is, in centralized case, the control messages are carried
> by CoAP as payload; and in distributed case, the control messages are
> "sent" via internal pointer.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Qin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>