IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tsch] rank, Dagrank(rank) and Join Priority

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 07 October 2013 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 9DA9221E8207 for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 tqS4+VGR34oI for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762B621E8202 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1878; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381184724; x=1382394324; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/n2JqfwAEibJ41WDRqCW4cuVPXEEYAnosoU+M0tkD/o=; b=hq48Vs4VEztNBNVYje5fG/Q5/8BJcqS78OUp6c+tiUOlpfpVNtgCdel0 7cQ5zpukaBm6qyi7I8opcpxujb1SPiMm759an046ZDIxDOTwETw2P3OFK ympi9/phYi8kSu92/4DHHGZ5IK0E3+pky7CB0I8g8usargS1dp7vN2r/B c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFABY0U1KtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZDoJ5OIN6vXkXgQcWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQEgEToLBQsCAQYCGgImAgICJQsVEAIEDgWIAAYMjRubXJItBIEpjXUzB4JqgTkDmAGSAIJlPw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1051,1371081600"; d="scan'208";a="269206899"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Oct 2013 22:25:17 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r97MPFDU002958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 22:25:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.2]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:25:15 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "<xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>" <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Thread-Topic: [6tsch] rank, Dagrank(rank) and Join Priority
Thread-Index: AQHOw5bLQ7tgxIQ9hUuYpowdqQw8KJnp0QOu
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 22:25:15 +0000
Message-ID: <16AA9E8A-B91F-40C9-BF6E-83521741653F@cisco.com>
References: <CALEMV4aWvMWKkhFMpUSix30D0j_FQHg_o1L3t6fGmWgpriENSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALEMV4aWvMWKkhFMpUSix30D0j_FQHg_o1L3t6fGmWgpriENSg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tsch] rank, Dagrank(rank) and Join Priority
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, 07 Oct 2013 22:25:29 -0000

Hello Xavi

Yes you can safely insist that the floor is one octet because we force min increae to 256, no problem there, in fact it is a design point 😊

Cheers

Pascal

> Le 7 oct. 2013 à 21:52, "Xavier Vilajosana Guillen" <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> a écrit :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am reviewing the minimal draft and I want to clarify one thing:
> 
> according to RFC6550
> 
> DAGRank(rank) = floor(rank/MinHopRankIncrease)
> 
> the RFC does not specify whether DAGRank(rank) is a 16bit integer or a 8bit integer (or another type) but if MinHopRankIncrease is 256, then for sure that the result of DAGRank(rank) will be smaller than 256 and hence will fit in an 8bit variable.
> 
> If that is the case then the join priority field can be exactly DAGRank(rank) and we do not need to do this shifting that we've been discussing so far.
> 
> Now the minimal draft states that Join Priority == DAGRank(rank)
> 
> should I clarify there that this assumes that DAGRank(rank) is an 8bit integer. In case it is not an 8bit integer then we need to shift it to consider the most significant 8 bits. 
> 
> Do you agree on that? 
> 
> sorry to come back again to the topic but I want to close it asap :-)
> X
> _______________________________________________
> 6tsch mailing list
> 6tsch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email