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

[Qin Wang <[e-mail]>]

Agree! Thanks!

Qin




On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> 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]> 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]] *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]>
> 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]]****
>
> 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]>
> 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]]
> 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]>
> 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]>
> 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]> 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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>