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

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
>
>