Hi Ramy,
I can see your point. I think, as you proposed, a list of relocated cells in
Response message may be a good idea, because it supports more flexibility. Take
Fig 15 as an example. Assume only (4,2) is available at nodeB. If (1,2) is
relocated to (4,2), then, the list of relocated cells in Response message is
[(4,2), (NaN, NaN)], otherwise [(NaN, NaN), (4,2)]. Right?
BTW, it is impossible for (1,2) and (2,2) to be of different type (Rx and Tx)
as you suggested, because all of the cells in both relocation list and
candidate list are under one CellOptions.
ThanksQin
On Monday, September 4, 2017 3:16 AM, Liubing (Remy)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Xavi,
Thank you for your response.
I think the cells are equivalent if they belong to the same bundle. For
example, the cells (1,2) and (2,2) are used together to transmit a relatively
large packet. In this case, the two cells should be considered as a whole: if
(1,2) cannot be relocated then (2,2) won't be able too; otherwise, if (1,2) can
be relocated and (2,2) can't, it might be inappropriate to relocate (1,2) only,
because it could cause packet loss.
If (1,2) and (2,2) are of different purpose (to transmit different packets) or
of different type (RX and TX), they can be considered independently: the
relocation of (2,2) should be considered even if the relocation of (1,2) fails.
Indeed, the policy is implementation-specific, but it might be better for 6top
to support more possibilities. For example, a cell (NaN, NaN) could be used to
represent a relocation failure.
Best regards,
Remy
From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:18 PM
To: Liubing (Remy)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Question about the Relocation in 6P
Hi Remy,
I think this can be an implementation decision. IMHO, when a node requests a
relocation like the one in Figure 15, it assumes that any of the candidate
cells is equivalent. This means that if [1,2] cannot be relocated then [2,2]
won't be able too. Seen in another way, the relocation may happen in the list
order consuming all possible candidate cells. This can be seen as a policy that
may depend on the implementation or SF rules so other options may also be
possible but are out of the scope of 6P..
Do you have a specific example where the case you present is relevant?
regards,
Xavi
2017-08-30 8:29 GMT+02:00 Liubing (Remy) <[email protected]>:
Hello folks,
I have a question about the relocation of cells in the draft
6tisch-6top-protocol.
In section 4.3.3, node A wants to relocate several cells and selects candidate
cells from its schedule for node B, then node B's SF verifies which of the
cells it can install in its schedule. The verification can be partially
succeed. If N < NumCells cells appear in the CellList, this means first N cells
in the Relocation CellList have been relocated, the remainder have not.
Does this mean that if the relocation of the first cells fails, there would not
be necessary to verify if the rest cells could be relocated? For example, in
Figure 15, if the cell (1,2) in the R. CellList cannot be relocated to any of
the cells in C.CellList, then (2,2) will not be relocated even if it is
possible to relocate it to (6,5)?
Thanks,
Remy
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
--
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab
Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Professor
(+34) 646 633 681
[email protected]
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
