Hi Diego,
diego> b) if we keep working with the initial assumption, and do not
diego> allow any shared cells to be scheduled by SF0.
Why is scheduling shared cells not allowed by the initial assumption?
I'm a relative newcomer to 6TiSCH and not sure about the initial
assumption...
To me, it seems that scheduling shared cells is more sensible in
Neighbor-to-Neighbor Scheduling than dedicated cells. I would say that
the SHARED cell bit in the CellOptions field should be always on when
the field is used for CMD_ADD.
A pair of devices in a 6P conversation have no idea if cells they are
scheduling are truly dedicated. In general, cells scheduled with 6P
are possibly shared with multiple TX devices. In other words, I think
it'd be better to always perform CCA on a cell scheduled with 6P.
Best,
Yatch
On 2016/10/31 22:23, Prof. Diego Dujovne wrote:
Dear all,
SF0 has assumed until now that it was
only working on dedicated cells, but 6P now provides
the possibility to use shared cells.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the
following alternatives:
a) if we allow shared cells to be used SF0, how to
establish a policy on which type of cells to allocate.
Currently, SF0 observes only the incoming number of
cell allocation requests and effectively used cells
to calculate the number of required cells.
b) if we keep working with the initial assumption, and
do not allow any shared cells to be scheduled by SF0.
A quick solution would be to define two different instances
of SF0, one for shared cells and the other for dedicated
ones.
Regards,
Diego
--
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Profesor Asociado
Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de IngenierÃa - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
www.ingenieria.udp.cl <http://www.ingenieria.udp.cl>
(56 2) 676 8125
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
