Pat - unless something was changed in 802.15.4-2015, that was not how the
original TSCH shared slots worked.  Devices don't do carrier sense, since
transmissions are synchronized and talk at the same time (within sync
tolerances) - they do however back off using a similar backoff mechanism,
but counted in shared slots as opposed to time, to avoid persistent
collision.    I think that's what "slotted Aloha" is supposed to mean here
- a slotted shared medium without carrier sense.

Jonathan

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Pat Kinney <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi  Qin;
> A shared slot is open for all devices.  To transmit on this timeslot a
> device shall sense the medium for activity, if active it shall wait for the
> next available time slot.   Hence a shared slot is a contention access
> period for CSMA-CA.  This isn't slotted aloha, since it senses the medium
> first.
> Pat
>
> Patrick Kinney
> Kinney Consulting
> +1.847.960.3715
> [email protected]
>
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Qin Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
> According to my understanding, in the TSCH mode of 802.15.4, if the
> attribute of a slot is Shared, slotted- aloha access should be allowed in
> the slot. Right?
>
> Thanks
> Qin
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 2:29 PM, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Xavi;
>
> As I understand slotted-aloha, TSCH is really Time Division Multiple
> Access (TDMA), not slotted-aloha.  Slotted-aloha access to the medium is
> used in the 802.15.4 CSMA algorithms for some modes but not TSCH.
>
> Pat
>
> On 11, Dec2015, at 11:24, Xavier Vilajosana <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I wrapped up the proposed changes and integrated them to the version in
> bitbucket.
>
> https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/commits/28cb63fde078a0aec8307d416e82cdf482c0608a
>
> For simplicity, see here a summary of the changes.
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> [OLD]
>
>  This document describes the minimal set of rules to operate an IEEE
>    802.15.4 Timeslotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) network.  This minimal
>    mode of operation can be used during network bootstrap, as a fall-
>    back mode of operation when no dynamic scheduling solution is
>    available or functioning, or during early interoperability testing
>    and development.
>
> [NEW]
>
> This document describes a minimal mode of operation for a 6TiSCH
>    Network, to provide IPv6 connectivity over a Non-Broadcast Multi-
>    Access (NBMA) mesh that is formed of IEEE 802.15.4 Timeslotted
>    Channel Hopping (TSCH) links.  This minimal mode leverages 6LoWPAN
>    and RPL to enable slotted-aloha operations over a static TSCH
>    schedule.
>
>
> Introduction:
>
> [OLD]
>
> The nodes in a IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network follow a communication
>    schedule.  The entity (centralized or decentralized) responsible for
>    building and maintaining that schedule has precise control over the
>    trade-off between the network's latency, bandwidth, reliability and
>    power consumption.  During early interoperability testing and
>    development, however, simplicity is more important than efficiency.
>    One goal of this document is to define the simplest set of rules for
>    building a TSCH-compliant network, at the necessary price of lesser
>    efficiency.  Yet, this minimal mode of operation MAY also be used
>    during network bootstrap before any schedule is installed into the
>    network so nodes can self-organize and the management and
>    configuration information be distributed.  In addition, the minimal
>    configuration MAY be used as a fall-back mode of operation, ensuring
>    connectivity of nodes in case that dynamic scheduling mechanisms fail
>    or are not available.  The IEEE 802.15.4 specification provides a
>    mechanism whereby the details of slotframe length, timeslot timing,
>    and channel hopping pattern are communicated when a node time
>    synchronizes to the network [IEEE802154].  This document describes
>    specific settings for these parameters.
>
> [NEW]
>
>  A 6TiSCH Network provides IPv6 connectivity over a Non-Broadcast
>    Multi-Access (NBMA) mesh that is formed of IEEE 802.15.4 Timeslotted
>    Channel Hopping (TSCH) links.
>
>    The 6TiSCH [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture] architecture requires the
>    use of both RPL and the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer framework
>    ([RFC4944], [RFC6282]) as defined over IEEE 802.14.5.  6LoWPAN
>    Neighbor Discovery [RFC6775] (ND) is also required to exchange
>    Compression Contexts, form IPv6 addresses and register them for the
>    purpose of Duplicate Address Detection, Address Resolution and
>    Neighbor Unreachability detection over one TSCH link.  In order to
>    reduce the header overhead of the RPL artifacts in data packets, the
>    Routing header [RFC6554], the RPL Option [RFC6553] and the related IP
>    in IP encapsulation MUST be encoded as prescribed in
>    [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch]
>
>    Nodes in a IEEE 802.15.4 TSCH network follow a communication
>    schedule.  A network using the simple mode of operation uses a static
>    schedule.
>
>    This specification defines a Minimal Configuration to build a 6TiSCH
>    Network, using the Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL) and a static TSCH
>    Schedule.  The 802.15.4 TSCH mode, RPL [RFC6550], and its Objective
>    Function 0 (OF0) [RFC6552], are used unmodified, but parameters and
>    particular operations are specified to guarantee interoperability
>    between nodes in a 6TiSCH Network.
>
>    More advanced work is expected in the future to complement the
>    Minimal Configuration with dynamic operations that can adapt the
>    Schedule to the needs of the traffic in run time.
>
>
> Section 11.2
>
> [OLD]
>
> In addition to the Objective Function (OF), nodes in a multihop
>    network using RPL MUST indicate the preferred mode of operation using
>    the MOP field in DIO.  Nodes not being able to operate in the
>    specified mode of operation MUST only join as leaf nodes.  RPL
>    information and hop-by-hop extension headers MUST follow [RFC6553]
>    and [RFC6554] specification.  In the case that the packets formed at
>    the LLN need to cross through intermediate routers, these MUST follow
>    the IP in IP encapsulation requirement specified by the [RFC6282] and
>    [RFC2460].  RPI and RH3 extension headers and inner IP headers MUST
>    be compressed according to [RFC6282].
>
> [NEW]
>
> In addition to the Objective Function (OF), nodes in a multihop
>    network using RPL MUST indicate the preferred mode of operation using
>    the MOP field in DIO.  Nodes not being able to operate in the
>    specified mode of operation MUST only join as leaf nodes.  RPL
>    information and hop-by-hop extension headers MUST follow [RFC6553]
>    and [RFC6554] specification.  In the case that the packets formed at
>    the LLN need to cross through intermediate routers, these MUST follow
>    the IP in IP encapsulation requirement specified by the [RFC6282] and
>    [RFC2460].  RPI and RH3 extension headers and inner IP headers MUST
>    be compressed according to [RFC6282] and
> [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch].
>
>
> have a nice weekend,
> Xavi
>
> 2015-12-11 17:49 GMT+01:00 Kris Pister <[email protected]>:
>
> Ralph - to my knowledge no one has deployed the specific time-parent
> selection scheme described in 802.15.4-*.  The basic scheme will likely
> work,
> but the devil will be in the real-world details.
>
> We've had about 8 years of successful deployments of industrial tsch mesh
> networks using a time-parent selection scheme similar to what is proposed
> in minimal.
>
> 6TiSCH present a rich design space at many levels.  The goal of minimal was
> to do something simple, based as closely as possible on things that are
> known to work in deployed networks.  The hope and belief is that new and
> better ideas will emerge, but it is certain that many of the proposed "good
> ideas" will fail.  By defining minimal we provide a reliable interoperable
> platform on which papers like "Comparing time-parent selection in 15.4-*
> and foo" can be written.
>
> ksjp
>
> On 12/10/2015 5:43 AM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
>
> Is there an analysis published somewhere that demonstrates how time
> synchronization in 802.15.4-* is inadequate for 6TiSCH?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to