[6tsch] Is generic management method possible?

Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu> Mon, 09 September 2013 20:58 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 8741A21F9FED for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, 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 zvNLC5vqnxGs for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com (mail-vc0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046B011E8116 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ia10so4294801vcb.20 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:57:46 -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:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=RzzAQNuRzG6xOr/xRdf4jyAHdrDkaDtJyqeUSsjDkLM=; b=FSsYtVFj40of+OTT3cpW+5MVrWIQDqPnnXahsq9M4V9Pi1Qfg58zib6OC1XAfeJ2SZ Kh2orUyxhbWxYhCwCEaGXcImsUw6xpN+nrKGCTbYZShE1UIqcNTFVPgf78nFhPwZoktS LCc5W3ys2S7VuB2uUzm4KK102FDwGGM1FlsjvsTNFhIxGYS2Mq5JwJV4yi+YiVKkyutQ 438041P4jV+3j/GPFE0fBsNZlgIo6HJaVbbxIumQqH/3KHZYrfJTs/ROxZw/9BBlfKq9 4NQVThwV7C2RwTHgmpTqWsFEl/2ZE3PTsuQCiB80dQyCYA0ycWTiYoxbyP+UbTH+wt1y XM8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/ISo2Hc1Q3L08RmI9qMI5MeVhvhBFpueGM1EC6QX0Ps4kwdRjYpj/oWj5b4EhDYSiuq1/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.67.9 with SMTP id j9mr3570110vet.22.1378760266325; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.116.135 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:57:46 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAzoce6CvKLUxr2SDD0pp4NGRGhd8n2+XXzCep6EDjUF3+d67Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qin Wang <qinwang@berkeley.edu>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339e07e7aeeb04e5f9a3a1
Subject: [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: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:58:14 -0000

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