[6tsch] blacklisting (was "report flow contents")
Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> Mon, 16 September 2013 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <twatteyne@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 C863311E8139 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.516, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 QMkOXjEIN-6D for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x232.google.com (mail-pb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BD111E810D for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id uo5so4369376pbc.23 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=37FogDLZh6TuUxAK9C2Ue7SKxLOkgy8h2H3XwnnlWts=; b=FYdbj/5EoJ/MnXmIvPEv8tV+RkBomzMZTR8VPuA2J0k/3RBH/ILwYc6slqW1lGNvGl hWZ3gWwYwCs56c0moUxew3xvvRa+ue68OACdk6FFbnpKKk5fXihmSu3VExZvR4XJ6PDn fyxFig/lHqfWGl7FyuFHyP5TdMYDoRzFYQKKb77NYVFJ2UCCnOqtjtqiAIHBisROEV/S PzfNg0x6FhfEDcMJomfAQhxpHtliTwzN2kRAMZ8gJVrg2PgbHtoeeeZcidky+oVrJEN+ NhI5vakh6BV+lzgFpDGtGRfBRcgpylqKWs9vj2gEOqIb0ZEddpRUmWlwkGMgS6N7rsB1 EwvA==
X-Received: by 10.68.4.197 with SMTP id m5mr30397360pbm.46.1379355420516; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: twatteyne@gmail.com
Received: by 10.66.147.193 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:16:38 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0rPKXM-2i9R5c-sgPIFVEhl3Zac
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA-6T82049Ok1VV-VJTRsddR7So+uH7QyW=LjiWTkOhp9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6TSCH <6tsch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec52154e1dbe86504e6843513"
Subject: [6tsch] blacklisting (was "report flow contents")
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, 16 Sep 2013 18:17:07 -0000
*[changed thread subject from 'report flow contents' to 'blacklisting (was "report flow contents")']* All, Great discussion! Allow me to sum up. Problem statement: - At 2.4GHz, 16 orthogonal frequencies are available. - "blind" channel hopping exploits frequencies diversity by hopping on all 16 frequencies - because of interference and multi-path fading, some frequencies exhibit a worse Packet Delivery Ratio (PFD) than others - if because of interference, it is possible that same set of frequencies are "bad" in the whole network - if because of multi-path fading, the set of "bad" frequencies is different for every pair of neighbor nodes Network-wide blacklisting: - goal: prevent all nodes in the network to use a given frequency - decision can be made by PCE after receiving statistics, or administratively by operator configuration - different mechanisms to blacklist a channel: - modify the hopping pattern to include the same frequency twice and remove another one. Can be done on-the-fly. - consider there are only 15 frequencies, and build a schedule with 15 channel offsets. Needs to be done before network starts (or long process of "freeing-up" one channel offset) - efficiency is limited since: - because of multi-path fading, a "bad" channel might not be bad for all bundles - limits frequency diversity Per-link blacklisting: - goal: prevent a bundle (i.e. two neighbors scheduled to communicate) to use a given frequency - decision can be made based on the per-frequency statistics gathered (packet counters and/or RSSI/LQI) - problem: - changing the hopping pattern for a single bundle can create interference with other bundles since collisions are possible if hopping on different sets of frequencies. - solution (used by ISA100): - cancel a scheduled communication if that communication happens on the blacklisted channel - note that this will reduce the bandwidth of that bundle by 1/16, so needs possibly to be combined with adding 1/16 more cells to that bundle. Did I miss something? Thomas On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM, <P.Zand@utwente.nl> wrote: > Hi Qin, > > "Link-by-link" adaptive channel hopping in ISA is used by a node to > select the best frequencies for its further communication with its > particular neighbor. > And, cell over-provision (i.e. the combination of "channel offset" and > "slot" info used for communication with a particular neighbor), might be > used for evaluating the internal interference and BW requirements between > two neighbors. Am I right? > > Best wishes, > Pouria Zand > > On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:34 PM, "Qin Wang" <qinwang@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Hi Pouria and Diego, > > I think the "link-by-link" adaptive channel hopping mechanism of > ISA100.11a AND cell over-provision mechanism of 6top can be used together. > Make sense? > > Thanks > Qin > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, <P.Zand@utwente.nl> wrote: > >> Hi Diego, >> >> ISA100.11a considers the adaptive channel hopping on a link-by-link >> basis, in addition to traditional blacklisting on the whole network. This >> mechanism is described as following: >> >> "Additionally, a device may autonomously treat transmit links on >> problematic channels as idle, thus reducing unnecessary interference and >> wasted energy on channels with a history of poor connectivity. A device >> skipping links in this manner should periodically test the links to verify >> that they remain problematic. Such selective channel utilization can be >> disabled by the system manager on a link-by-link basis, through the >> attribute dlmo.Link[].Type.SelectiveAllowed. [1]" >> >> In this scheme, the sender/receiver consider the poor channel as idle. >> The sender and receiver (on the poor edge) will still follow the defined >> hopping pattern and they will not conflict with the rest of the network. >> Potential Drawbacks: 1/16 of the resources might be wasted on that edge, >> but the poor channel of that edge will be skipped, locally. >> Important Strength: The overhead of this scheme is low. >> >> Best wishes, >> puoria >> >> 1. IEC 62734: Industrial communication networks - Fieldbus specifications >> - Wireless systems for industrial automation: process control and related >> applications - ISA100.11a. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Prof. Diego Dujovne >> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:07 PM >> To: Qin Wang >> Cc: Thomas Watteyne; 6TSCH >> Subject: Re: [6tsch] report flow contents >> >> Hi Qin, >> On the centralized case, changing the channel hopping sequence >> (and thus blacklisting the channels with interference) on the whole >> network, and not in a peer basis is not efficient in terms of channel >> usage. Let me explain this with an >> example: >> >> Let's say there is are 4 nodes: A, B, C and D. A and B are interfered >> only on channel 4 by an external source, while C and D listen interference >> only on channel 8. If I disable channel 4 and 8 by blacklisting both >> channels from the hopping sequence, A and B won't be able to use channel 8 >> and C and D won't be able to use channel 4, both interference free between >> them. >> >> On the distributed case, if two nodes are already connected and if both >> detect a interfered channel they will (someway) agree to blacklist that >> channel from the hopping sequence. But we have not arrived to this case yet >> on 6TiSCH. >> >> On the other side, if we blacklist by changing the hopping sequence, a >> node talking to different neighbours will have different channel hopping >> sequences. And this increases complexity too. >> >> I don't have an answer (just questions) on how to reduce the probability >> of using an interfered channel, but it seems that the current tsch scheme >> does not allow a simple way to blacklist channels unless it is done >> network-wide. To sum up, I'm worrying about reducing channel diversity. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/9/13 Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>: >> > Hi Diego, >> > >> > I understand, theoretically, dynamic allocation may have some >> > advantages in terms of increasing reliability. But, in the channel >> > hopping network, it is challenge for a node to catch up the channel >> > hopping sequence change in its neighbors. Thus, I think, if updating >> > channel hopping sequence, it could be better to do it in network wide. >> What do you think? >> > >> > Thanks >> > Qin >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Prof. Diego Dujovne >> > <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> wrote: >> >> >> >> Qin, >> >> I think frequency blacklisting on a node-pair basis (either >> >> centralized or distributed) would break the schedule matrix >> >> structure, which overrides narrowband interference by channel >> >> hopping. >> >> If frequencies are blacklisted on all slots, that would waste >> >> resources. Narrowband interference can harm the link locally, but the >> >> same frequency may be interference-free in other parts of the net. >> >> The dynamic allocation I propose was only an example. If you >> >> have 16 frequencies and 2 of them have interference, and the channel >> >> offset is sequential, you may loose 2 packets every 16. Am I right on >> >> this? >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/9/13 Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>: >> >> > Thomas, >> >> > >> >> > I agree with you that it is not clear what is the advantage and >> >> > disadvantage of adaptive channel hopping in reality. >> >> > >> >> > In mind, based on the per-frequency report, PCE can do two things: >> >> > (1) update channel hopping sequence is a frequency is really bad >> >> > network wide; >> >> > (2) avoid use some bad channel when it runs cell allocation >> algorithm. >> >> > The >> >> > two things happen in PCE, so, will not make negative impact on the >> >> > network. >> >> > Thought? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks >> >> > >> >> > Qin >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Thomas Watteyne >> >> > <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Qin, Diego, >> >> >> >> >> >> My 2 cents. I agree with you that it would be nice for the PCE to >> >> >> be able to get some per-channel information. Although adaptive >> >> >> channel hopping (i.e. >> >> >> selectively blacklisting frequencies for a specific bundle) is >> >> >> appealing in principle, it's unclear (at least to me) whether the >> >> >> gains clearly outweigh the overhead (complexity, signalign >> >> >> traffic) one has to pay to coordinate this [1-5]. >> >> >> >> >> >> My opinion is that we should enable both metrics averages over all >> >> >> channels, and per-channel metrics. In some configurations, one can >> >> >> imagine gathering the former by default, and querying for the >> >> >> latter on specific occasions. Having the option of gathering >> >> >> per-channel information does enable us to be future-proof against >> >> >> future adaptive channel hopping algorithm. >> >> >> >> >> >> For sure, this makes for a great question: how do a pair of motes >> >> >> and the PCE have to communicate to enable adaptive channel hopping >> >> >> on that link? The answer to that might directly impact the >> >> >> application payload formats we have are talking about. Is this >> >> >> something you be interested in looking further into? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] A Decentralized Scheduling Algorithm for Time Synchronized >> >> >> Channel Hopping. Andrew Tinka, Thomas Watteyne, Kris Pister, >> Alexandre M. >> >> >> Bayen. >> >> >> ICST Transactions on Mobile Communications and Applications, >> 11(7-9). >> >> >> European Union Digital Library link. >> >> >> doi:10.4108/icst.trans.mca.2011.e5. >> >> >> September 2011. >> >> >> [2] A Decentralized Scheduling Algorithm for Time Synchronized >> >> >> Channel Hopping. Andrew Tinka, Thomas Watteyne, Kris Pister. >> >> >> International Conference on Ad Hoc Networks (ADHOCNETS), Victoria, >> >> >> BC, Canada, 18-20 August 2010. >> >> >> [3] Mitigating Multipath Fading Through Channel Hopping in >> >> >> Wireless Sensor Networks. Thomas Watteyne, Steven Lanzisera, Ankur >> >> >> Mehta, Kris Pister. >> >> >> IEEE >> >> >> International Conference on Communications (ICC), Cape Town, South >> >> >> Africa, >> >> >> 23-27 May, 2010. >> >> >> [4] Feasibility Analysis of Controller Design for Adaptive Channel >> >> >> Hopping. Branko Kerkez, Thomas Watteyne, Mario Magliocco, Steven >> >> >> Glaser, Kris Pister. First International Workshop on Performance >> >> >> Methodologies and Tools for Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNPerf), >> >> >> Pisa, Italy, 23 October 2009. >> >> >> [5] Reliability Through Frequency Diversity: Why Channel Hopping >> >> >> Makes Sense. Thomas Watteyne, Ankur Mehta, Kris Pister. Sixth ACM >> >> >> International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Wireless Ad >> >> >> Hoc, Sensor, and Ubiquitous Networks (PE-WASUN), Tenerife, Canary >> >> >> Islands, Spain, 26-30 October 2009. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Prof. Diego Dujovne >> >> >> <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Hello Qin, >> >> >>> I think that a per-frequency report will help the >> >> >>> PCE to decide which frequency to use, and maybe temporarily >> >> >>> black-list them. For example, a dynamic scheme may include >> >> >>> sampling the blacklisted frequencies every X minutes to re-enable >> >> >>> them once the interference has disappeared. >> >> >>> This will require the node to refresh the RSSI and >> >> >>> LQI values in a opportunistic way (every time the a cell uses >> >> >>> that frequency) to save energy. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Any thoughts? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Diego >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> 6tsch mailing list >> >> >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > 6tsch mailing list >> >> > 6tsch@ietf.org >> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> DIEGO DUJOVNE >> >> Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones >> >> Facultad de Ingeniería UDP www.ingenieria.udp.cl >> >> (56 2) 676 8125 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> DIEGO DUJOVNE >> Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones >> Facultad de Ingeniería UDP >> www.ingenieria.udp.cl >> (56 2) 676 8125 >> _______________________________________________ >> 6tsch mailing list >> 6tsch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch >> > >
- Re: [6tsch] blacklisting (was "report flow conten… Thomas Watteyne
- [6tsch] blacklisting (was "report flow contents") Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] blacklisting (was "report flow conten… Qin Wang