Hi Pascal,
I want confirm what I understood.(1) Both step1 and step2 are extra message
besides ADD/DELETE message exchange(2) Because the step1 and step2, Child will
know which cells it can use. Then, when the child wants more cells, the child
selects the cells from those set as UNUSED in the bitmap, as candidates, and
send ADD request to parent. And the parent will send Response to confirm. That
is 2-stages, instead of 3-stages message exchange.
ThanksQin
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 3:05 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Qin:
Please consider the message by Tero.
The ack is Mac-layer before upper layer processing and does not guarantee
success in the stack.
What we'd really want is suppress the MAC layer ack but not the 6P response.
Another angle (for the sake of making sure we left no stone unturned).
If we think transactionality is too difficult to achieve and that parent/child
may lose sync: it is possible to avoid the issues with transactionality by
using a bitmap to represent cells like LoRa does with frequencies.
Step 1 the parent provides a list of cells (say 16) that it may allocate to
that child in the future. The list may differ per child and may overlap with
other children to enable to parent to temporarily give a cell to one child or
another.
Step 2 (runtime) the parent sends the bitmap of the cells, bit set if the cell
is use child to parent. If this is sent regularly like a frame relay full
status, things will eventually sync.
What do you think?
Pascal
Le 8 mars 2016 à 22:34, Qin Wang <[email protected]> a écrit :
Hi Diego,
I also have question regarding to the third message, i.e. Child acknowledge.
In this case, the Child must accept the selected cells in the Parent's message
if it received the message. Right? In another word, if the Parent knows the
Child has received the message correctly, the Parent can be sure that the
selected cells will be added/deleted into/from the Child's schedule. Since the
MAC layer ACK can tell Parent the Child has received its message correctly, I
think there is no need for the Child to send back the 6P layer Acknowledgement.
Do I miss something?
ThanksQin
On Friday, March 4, 2016 7:51 AM, Lijo Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
#yiv8088234616 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv8088234616
filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv8088234616
filtered {panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv8088234616 filtered {panose-1:2 5
6 4 5 5 5 2 2 4;}#yiv8088234616 p.yiv8088234616MsoNormal, #yiv8088234616
li.yiv8088234616MsoNormal, #yiv8088234616 div.yiv8088234616MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv8088234616 a:link,
#yiv8088234616 span.yiv8088234616MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8088234616 a:visited, #yiv8088234616
span.yiv8088234616MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8088234616
span.yiv8088234616EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv8088234616
span.yiv8088234616EmailStyle18 {color:#833C0B;}#yiv8088234616
.yiv8088234616MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv8088234616 filtered
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv8088234616
div.yiv8088234616WordSection1 {}#yiv8088234616 Hi Diego, Do we really require
3 transactions for 6P operations as mentioned. The second transaction from
the parent contains all the required information for the task. In case the 2nd
packet is lost, the parent will schedule a RX link which will be unutilized for
the time being and can be reallocated depending on the scheduling function. But
if the 3rd transaction is lost, the client will allocate the TX link and will
start transmitting packets. So can we avoid the ACK packet(3rd transaction)
from the client, or is there any added benefit. Thanks & Regards,Lijo Thomas
From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Prof. Diego Dujovne
Sent: 03 March 2016 21:11
To: [email protected]
Subject: [6tisch] 6P and Sf0 issue: Piggybacking data packet with IE
confirmation Dear all, Given that there is parent preference in cell
selection, a child-initiated transaction triggers a three-stepexchange:1- Child
sends request to Parent with whitelist/blacklist of slotoffsets2- Parent
selects cells3- Child acknowledges and finishes the transactionThe main idea is
to enable an optional Piggybacking of the IE on adata packet to reduce the
number of transmitted packets, but thereare latency concerns when the (data)
traffic is low.Is it worth to enable this option given the added
complexity?Regards, Diego Dujovne
-- DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
