Julien Abeille (jabeille) wrote:
[...]
Regarding the second question, we still have two disalignments:
- "subnet wide" (this is a tough one as we have not discussed addressing
yet) vs "one hop radio wide" . E.g. in route over for link local address
resolution of 2+ hop neighors make no sense to me. Same with off link
prefixes (which we are talking about I think)
- some of us advocate that duty cycling techniques ensure high delivery
probability one hop away: see Jonathan ("The whole discussion around
sleepy nodes is problematic for me as well. The link is either up or
down, not sort-of kind-of"), Adam's emails. Kris, can you give your TSCH
view?
Julien - I'm not sure that I would say that it's the duty cycling
techniques themselves that ensure high delivery, but I would say that
those people who have taken the time to develop deeply-duty-cycled link
layers have also worked very hard to make sure that they are also
reliable. 802.15.4E in particular provides channel hopping mechanisms
that make links very stable in time. With channel hopping and static
node locations, if the link works today then the probability that it
will disappear tomorrow is almost zero (maybe 0.1%?), even in the
presence of a lot of human activity. The quality may change - for the
most volatile decile ETX can vary by many 10s of percent over a period
of hours, but it's very rare that it will go from ~1 to 2, let alone 2
to 5 or infinity.
ksjp
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
