Re: [6tsch] report flow contents
Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> Thu, 05 September 2013 23:18 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 669B621F9E62 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, 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 7J2CegSXG8lc for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798FA21F9C99 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q10so2448295pdj.21 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=gsmHls4/zFoD0JyD89Ztb1kJnGHYaB60PV+JoSrBjpI=; b=fzQMHRQF9lJw/+amxJhGp2xzZ7CwaZcg3pMq7ZxEgLvd/uMc7NwiwHYtW5noG7DtBc L2CTZUICtJ3BRhWLA0z3uvE7KczIxFi3NHO3hsB1K8/KXmIb4VtSkFvP+djjAc34Gc5M 0SDlL5d3cl5vUgenC9FtOoIW7a97DNWrVQ8iiUaPVVvTOxVOBfcXEwUTfs/FQbFN7h2V DHFjE7NnWc4WWaJ18EF+wpsgmm3vljiyLVe7WH19K37CbYy6c7kQtjXPDNl+GdGtykpB lFsp8eTB2aI5jvILgtjKTClD7h+8QPnb1D4tXKcIaond6jk58Jn7GModKd+XNnzBqV2B wPEQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.222.99 with SMTP id ql3mr11766250pbc.132.1378423130015; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: twatteyne@gmail.com
Received: by 10.66.147.193 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALEMV4ZdgWAFMyA=FtRik96evup-qJPQfTcDQEu99sfC0xFwuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADJ9OA_XeC7Z5hFxyHhFGqD0aFMcBn=iHzDfRq34sL9qPi2P4A@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4YN3rA2OXeAV1akOZhdQrMOQvhN0A+t6vsL9RPVV=VMnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADJ9OA8Cx3ingeiMdr60zUfMMENiay-Nftv0nMFOTD7=YcKgwg@mail.gmail.com> <CALEMV4ZdgWAFMyA=FtRik96evup-qJPQfTcDQEu99sfC0xFwuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Watteyne <watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:18:29 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: TPJLHLDI6tqjc8uXWYKcUwDXUUY
Message-ID: <CADJ9OA8Fy1iNNsukShN_jYnBVY6LsbEP5j+P_bvuOvCxX8O2vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xavi Vilajosana <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2eddc103cd8804e5ab2540"
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] 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: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 23:18:57 -0000
Fantastic. I guess something like that could work. Thomas On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > agreed! > So the fields become: > > > For each known neighbor: > -ID > -AVG RSSI in a running window > -Latest RSSI > -AVG LQI in a running window [optional] > -Latest LQI [optional] > -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that neighbor) > -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that > neighbor) > -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that neighbor) > -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor > -Bundle: Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor > -PDR per link [Optional -- or maybe best and worst PDR only] > > -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category) > +(TLV objects)* > > -For each Queue: > - Avg Queue length in a running window > - Max Queue length in a running window (peak) > - Current Queue length (?) > - ASN of the oldest packet in the QUEUE? > -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category) > +(TLV objects)* > > -Time source parent > -ID > -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window > -Latest clock correction > -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source > parent) > -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields on that category) > +(TLV objects)* > > -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields in other categories) > +(TLV objects)* > > as regards to this: > > "Finally, do you envision a generic mechanism whereby the PCE can turn > fields on/off, or triggered independently?" > > I see it as CoAP Options, where a set of bytes can be used as "clever > bitmap" to tell what options are there, the parsing will decode option by > option and will read the fields. In that way any combination of fields is > supported. > > would that work? > X > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Watteyne < > watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> Xavi, >> >> Fantastic! >> >> I believe PDR for each link might be too long to fit in a packet. While >> the mote will most likely keep that information, we could move that to the >> query flow, i.e. it is available to the PCE on-demand. >> >> Would you agree that the number of links in a bundle belongs to the >> neighbor? Of maybe we want a "bundle" category? >> >> In queuing, it might be interesting to see the age of the different >> packets, to be able to monitor latency. >> >> About LQI, there is no general consensus among vendors on what the >> definition is, or how exactly it is calculated. I would make it optional. >> >> Also, it might be good to be able to add arbitrary fields to each >> category: neighbor, queue, time source neighbor. >> >> Finally, do you envision a generic mechanism whereby the PCE can turn >> fields on/off, or triggered independently? >> >> Thomas >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hi Thomas, Diego, >>> >>> I agree that LQI should be there as well. I update here the list with >>> Thomas suggestions. >>> >>> For each known neighbor: >>> -ID >>> -AVG RSSI in a running window >>> -Latest RSSI >>> -AVG LQI in a running window >>> -Latest LQI >>> -Num TX packets (option in case there is communication with that >>> neighbor) >>> -Num ACK packets (option in case there is communication with that >>> neighbor) >>> -Num RX packets (option in case there is communication with that >>> neighbor) >>> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor >>> >>> Other fields >>> -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor >>> -For each link PDR >>> -For each Queue: >>> - Avg Queue length in a running window >>> - Max Queue length in a running window (peak) >>> - Current Queue length (?) >>> -Time source parent >>> -ID >>> -Avg clock drift (correction done) in a running window >>> -Latest clock correction >>> -Parent changes (counter of how many times I changed my time source >>> parent) >>> >>> -Option Flag (weather there are optional TLV fields) >>> +(TLV objects)* >>> >>> >>> Hope this makes sense. >>> cheers! >>> Xavi >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Watteyne < >>> watteyne@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> *[renamed thread]* >>>> >>>> Xavi, >>>> >>>> A few thoughts: >>>> - the counters (numTx, etc) will only be present for neighbors the node >>>> has communicate with, so they should be optional in the packet. >>>> - you have focused on the topological information (which I think is the >>>> right one). It might be useful to gather other data related to >>>> synchronization or queuing. >>>> - I couldn't agree more with your suggestion to make it extensible. >>>> This does mean that we will need to state somewhere that a device need to >>>> ignore silently fields it does not understand. >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Xavier Vilajosana Guillen < >>>> xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, I guess that flows are getting defined and I started to think >>>>> on the contents of the messages on that flows. Not sure if this is the >>>>> right time or I am going way far.. >>>>> >>>>> According to the previous discussion I assume that the five flows are: >>>>> >>>>> ME-6TOP - Query Flow >>>>> ME-6TOP - Action Flow >>>>> >>>>> 6TOP - ME - Report Flow >>>>> 6TOP - ME - Event Flow >>>>> 6TOP - ME - Request BW Flow >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to start defining the content of the messages in the Report >>>>> Flow: >>>>> >>>>> The Report Flow: has to deal with the information that a node knows >>>>> and has to be sent to the ME so the ME can compute the schedule among >>>>> others. Here I list the information that we can know in a mote and can be >>>>> used at the ME to compute the schedule (complete please if I miss something) >>>>> >>>>> For each known neighbor: >>>>> -ID >>>>> -AVG RSSI in a running window >>>>> -Latest RSSI >>>>> -Num TX packets >>>>> -Num ACK packets >>>>> -Num RX packets >>>>> -Last ASN when it heart about that neighbor >>>>> >>>>> Other fields >>>>> -Num links in the Schedule to that neighbor >>>>> -For each link PDR >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then we need to have some TLV like objects that can be used for >>>>> ad-hoc/naive/other extensions of the reporting process. In that way we >>>>> don't constraint the implementation of the scheduling alg. to that >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> what do you think? >>>>> X >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> In this thread, we will continue the discussion about Confirmation >>>>>> message. Here is some background information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Context: e.g. >>>>>> - node sends a report and want to know if the report is >>>>>> accepted., >>>>>> - ME sends a action request and want to know if/when the action >>>>>> taken. >>>>>> Options: >>>>>> (1) Nothing >>>>>> (2) Rely on transport mechanism (e.g. confirmable CoAP message) >>>>>> (3) App-level ACK type >>>>>> (4) Use different flow (i.e. action flow) >>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, different control flow may have different requirement for >>>>>> confirmation message. >>>>>> (1) Action Flow, needs a App-level confirmation, like Succ/Fail >>>>>> (2) Query Flow, automatically has the confirmation, i.e. the >>>>>> message packet corresponding to a specific query. >>>>>> (3) Report Flow and Event Flow, option (1)-(3) are OK, but I >>>>>> prefer option (1) and (3), i.e. the confirmation message is an option, but >>>>>> if a confirmation message is needed, it should be App-level Ack, instead of >>>>>> transport layer confirmation, which will give 6top more flexibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >
- [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Xavier Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- [6tsch] R: report flow contents Alfredo Grieco
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Prof. Diego Dujovne
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents Qin Wang
- Re: [6tsch] report flow contents P.Zand