agreed On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the input. Trying to evaluate the overhead of using the > > traffic class bits. I assume we want to have one dedicated traffic > > class for the join request/reply, which tells nodes NOT to take that > > traffic into account for deciding whether to add cells. > > I think that you got it right... we we should have an "available bandwidth > only" class, which is not the same as "best effort". > > (We can also use a different instanceID if that reuses code paths better. > WAY BACK, I suggested this, but it has other issues) > > We might also want to define what "best effort" means in a 6tisch network. > > > - what must be standardized, if anything? > > - what would a join request now look like, and what's the hit in > terms > > of byte count? > > I think it's one byte at the 6lowRH level to send the bits which were > otherwise zero and compressed out. > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > -- _______________________________________ 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 _______________________________________
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
