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

Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Tue, 10 September 2013 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
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 29F2E21E8051 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 BeMd7Kf2q0bX for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEFB11E80E4 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 9so1591633iec.6 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EdojhIVDEle86WNHo1pXpRwRtYxLXf+i97TX/2DZg28=; b=EFCcibJwETZItoIc2U7XsAjHGz2KxarO7oMoPeXBO1EAtlAN7ruuGRch9rARNUToPx otqTQTygEnKANXwu6CUcr9ZIMDTzc+Wxmre7I/lEgRxUu/+P53iK/bmt3Oe6OjYfUdfq B02hTc7RrCSEncuBbI7wKo1H4UKQ0ZD9XLdfx3WtUfypCzoHw8AUGFNqeKQAdIv0As9E LZeC39TdB5E12CxEz66wH1J2JvuR3lvXL9g1sMW+wWSuQ4PIQzW29r1HqQpnPenPkWZl cvtcS7Z5YLugPe/ELR+iWO3uQZXfibMgU96I/PTxWwIiNbZH2SIHBUHiuVCk1SVlX9oN h57Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkY1ky//gyf+q20ntnQpFj6+cyv6ATZ2Cr1WwNkOxFxcDaoCirja7B8NvX0dZXCCtLGWAcf
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.13.104 with SMTP id g8mr10761504igc.30.1378817335378; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.139.234 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F085911F642A6847987ADA23E611780D1859AB93@hoshi.uni.lux>
References: <CAAzoce6CvKLUxr2SDD0pp4NGRGhd8n2+XXzCep6EDjUF3+d67Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA8Ectu1Phk7XkVsm0oa50ry084gPF7Hb7DUUZ=Nv=rLnA@mail.gmail.com> <F085911F642A6847987ADA23E611780D1859AB93@hoshi.uni.lux>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:48:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce4Lio-6g1-0-hM44z1St6bgwvc15tWiY4+-06Hn3560pg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: Maria Rita PALATTELLA <maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c69c67c554e04e606ed67
Cc: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>, "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] Is generic management method possible?
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:49:00 -0000

Hi Thomas and Maria Rita,

I totally agree with you that we should focus on centralized approach in
the current step. But I cannot see it is very difficult to cover
distributed case. Maybe I miss something.

To be clear, in my mind, the exchanged messages in distributed case is that
between 6top and some Reservation protocol like RSVP/NSIS in upper layer.
In another word, it is about exchanging messages inside a node, instead of
exchanging messages among neighbors. I don't understand why for different
upper layer Reservation protocol, the control flows from/to 6top could be
different significantly. Can you explain a little more?

Thanks
Qin






On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Maria Rita PALATTELLA <
maria-rita.palattella@uni.lu> wrote:

>  Qin, I agree too about defining the formats in a way that we can reuse
> them for the distributed case. But, for the time being, I would be focused
> on the centralized approach and try to find a solution for it. And then,
> move to the distributed one (that for sure will raise other issues up).***
> *
>
> Let’s try to solve the problems one by one! ****
>
> Maria Rita ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* 6tsch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6tsch-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Thomas Watteyne
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:24 AM
> *To:* 6tsch@ietf.org
> *Subject:* 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
>
>