Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 18:09 UTC
Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 3207A11E80D2 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 YalvlBkidg8M for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02EB11E811E for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=24280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374516562; x=1375726162; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=AwmZOyCFac176d9x+GgFBEBPeqUiXN1Vp91HQ2z2L9M=; b=V9m1ISI0jFH1RpU+BCD3HCsF0i6fT0WSr+AYPwJgdkwqpZjgup8d6Nsf n0Xv2byHnOziSGAXzPnwgkrwBIqhxSH5nYQoM4WqOfgIskX6z7DRqGYsE Q0OM6DuueqUb2lBWWaHP4OcYNXczKCQCo/eTm2rYAkcSqaiToTQZbdeyd k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjYFAJF07VGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbDoI0RDVQt3mIOYEWFnSCJAEBAQQBAQEkBkELEAIBCBEBAwEBCxYHByEGCxQDBggCBA4FCId2Aw8MrxQNiF6NKoI7LQQGAYMQbgOFQ45DgW6DEop+hSaCVD6CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,720,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="237937211"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2013 18:09:19 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6MI9JIp009500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:09:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.35]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:09:19 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
Thread-Topic: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides
Thread-Index: AQHOhwEdgeHWM9VSMESZ/P74FBr7xZlw/jnA
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:09:18 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:09:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841380E73@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.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> <CAM4EQiM2mVGHSyk+C40q_WLf0zkrkxPxunXSBhDhntGqF5y=dg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzoce5RcroOMR6gmtYFXdkgZTiv2tfTXCJvd1gLMXxCo9+Pjg@mail.gmail.com> <51ed2a92.84520f0a.3287.ffffe42d@mx.google.com> <CAAzoce6u5sjiy9TPmEpsEx2tpi6ibOCSi2jLX1PC-UrTm_q4Hw@mail.gmail.com> <51ed4fe5.03210f0a.03c0.1e9d@mx.google.com> <CAAzoce5=2JK-9Or_x6Sp76bpy7URUUwbsy4C05YJNm+MdLYtMw@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8413809CC@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAAzoce6H3zXWWrH-i5KVJ7H5hVB4JJ_+vuXyy-J6+XkuDBLB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAzoce6H3zXWWrH-i5KVJ7H5hVB4JJ_+vuXyy-J6+XkuDBLB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.108.224]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD841380E73xmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>, Alfredo Grieco <alfredo.grieco@gmail.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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:09:29 -0000
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:qinwang@berkeley.edu] 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) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> 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: 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org>] 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 <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> 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:qinwang@berkeley.edu<mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>] 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 <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> 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:qinwang@berkeley.edu<mailto:qinwang@berkeley.edu>] 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 <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto:alfredo.grieco@gmail.com>> 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 <alfredo.grieco@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:6tsch@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
- [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Alfredo Grieco
- [6tsch] R: 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- [6tsch] R: 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- [6tsch] R: 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slides Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Kris Pister
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Kris Pister
- Re: [6tsch] 1c "Why is this a problem? " BoF slid… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)