Hi Pascal, Thanks for your explanation.
I agree with what you wrote below “Now we could have different bundles for each instance”. Best regards, Chonggang From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:15 AM To: Wang, Chonggang <[email protected]>; Qin Wang <[email protected]>; Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[email protected]>; Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]>; Turner, Randy <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft Hello Chonggang Each RPL instance defines a topology in which some routers peer with others. The roots and/or OF may be different. The question is whether all the L3 traffic goes on the same bundle pair regardless of the instance. At this moment it is. Now we could hav different bundles for each instance. There’s value in both ways, sharing saves resources by aggregating, isolating provides protection by isolating different instances in different cells… Pascal From: Wang, Chonggang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: mercredi 27 avril 2016 23:12 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Qin Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Turner, Randy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft Hi Pascal, Would you please elaborate “should we have different bundles for different RPL instance?”? I did not quite get the question. Thanks, Chonggang [cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]]<http://idcc.me/1qPHqfv> This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature. From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:55 AM To: Qin Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Turner, Randy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft Hello Qin It takes at least 2 bundles to create what a mote sees as a link, one in each direction. Now, should we have different bundles for different RPL instance? Pascal From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Qin Wang Sent: mercredi 27 avril 2016 16:58 To: Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Turner, Randy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft Hi all, Do we really need the term "Link"? IMO, "Link" in 6TiSCH is same as Bundle. Right? Thanks Qin On Friday, April 22, 2016 9:07 AM, Maria Rita PALATTELLA <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Randy, sorry for my late answer. Thomas, thanks for jumping into it. Sure, the typos will be fixed in the next version ;) About the definition of “link” I have to say this is a kind of endless story… We have been discussed a lot in the past how to define it, how to make clear that the concept for 6TiSCH is different from classical IETF link definition, but it seems we created confusion, by putting too much information all together into it. Thomas’s suggestion could simplify the problem. The link in fact exists when the two neighbors have at least one cell to exchange pkts. Thank you. Maria Rita From: 6tisch [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Watteyne Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 2:59 PM To: Turner, Randy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6tisch] comments on latest terminology draft Randy, I'll let Maria Rita comment about the typos, I assume it's just a matter to spinning the doc. About "link", I went back to read the draft. The following definition... ------------------ A communication facility or medium over which nodes can communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below IP. Thus, the IETF parlance for the term "Link" is adopted, as opposed to the IEEE802.15.4e terminology. In the context of the 6TiSCH architecture, which applies to Low Power Lossy Networks (LLNs), an IPv6 subnet is usually not congruent to a single link and techniques such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Proxying are used to achieve reachability within the multilink subnet. A link is distinct from a track. In fact, link local addresses are not expected to be used over a track for end to end communication. Finally, from the Layer 3 perspective (where the inner complexities of TSCH operations are hidden to enable classical IP routing and forwarding), a single radio interface may be seen as a number of Links with different capabilities for unicast or multicast services. --------------- ... is confusing, to say the least. IMO, it touches on almost all of the IETF work (talking about ND proxy, mutiling subnets, tracks in the definition of link ?!?) , is incredibly confusing, and as a result carries 0 information. What about A link exists between two nodes when at least one cell is schedule between them. Thomas On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Turner, Randy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Guys, I had a couple of comments on the recent -07 terminology draft: Deterministic Network - "A deterministic network can allocates..." should be "A deterministic network can allocate..." "6top Data Convey Model" - Model describing how the 6top adaptation layer...<snip> Is this really an adaptation layer? - In the IETF, the term "adaptation layer" has come to mean something different 6p Transaction - "Part of the 6top Protocol, in consists in" should probably be "...consists of" "Bundle" - typo "usining" should be "using" "Link" – When I read this description, it sounds similar to an interference domain - should the difference (if any) be spelled out or distinguished ? Or am I the only one that sees this similarity? Thanks! R. _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com<http://www.thomaswatteyne.com/> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
