Hi all,
I think Sedat raised a good question.
The explicit expression of LinkOption may be more flexible and more efficient
if we can find application in which a Node knows the need of two-way
communication bandwidth at a time. In another word, the current assumption for
implicit expression is that nodeA initializes a transaction with nodeB when
nodeA needs more bandwidth to send data to nodeB. The new assumption for
explicit expression is the nodeA knows not only the need of more bandwidth to
send data to nodeB, but also knows nodeB will needs more bandwidth for
response. I'm not sure if the new assumption makes sense.
What do you think?
ThanksQin
On Saturday, June 4, 2016 4:47 AM, Sedat Gormus <[email protected]>
wrote:
Xavi has explained my question.
The question here is that do we need to explicitly mark slots as tx, rx and
shared or not?
Will it be beneficial to have such an information for other purposes as Xavi
explained?
Regards,
Sedat
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Xavier Vilajosana
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Thomas, Sedat,all
I think he refers to link Option, that is whether the slots being allocated are
tx, rx, both, shared? etc...
The current draft is not explicit with that. The content is implicit in the
direction of the negotiation.
In a 6top negotiation (despite 2 o 3 step process) the origin is requesting TX
cells to the destination. That is if A requests 2 cells to B in the schedule of
A this cells will be marked with the linkOption TX. and in B will be marked
with the linkOption RX.
I guess Sedat is opening a more general question of whether we should enable
allocations such as installing bidirectional links in a single transaction. E.g
when A requests 2 cells to B and one is upstream and the other is downstream.
regards,
Xavi
2016-06-03 21:44 GMT+02:00 Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]>:
Sedat,I'm sorry, but I don't fullly understand your question. It's the SF
running on the nodes which selects the slots, so it can implement any policy it
wants. What doyou mean by "type of slot"?Thomas
On Friday, June 3, 2016, Sedat Gormus <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear All,
We are working towards implementing a distributed scheduling function.We have
been thinking about the structure of 6P cells where the slotOffset and
channelOffset pairs are used for disseminating information locally. We think,
we might need the slot type information as well to make the correct scheduling
for our objective. For example, if we want to minimize the delay, we would like
to create a request with a cell list from the next hop node that guarantees
minimum delay. Our requested transmit slots should be earlier than the next
hop's transmit slots in the schedule in order to do that. But, for this we need
to know the type of the slots within the schedule of our next hop neighbor
(parent in RPL case).
Any suggestions on this.
Regards,
Sedat
--
_______________________________________
Thomas Watteyne, PhDResearch Scientist & Innovator, InriaSr Networking Design
Eng, Linear TechFounder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSNCo-chair, IETF 6TiSCH
www.thomaswatteyne.com_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
