IETF Logo Mail Archive

[6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> Wed, 02 November 2016 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BCA129505 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eIegIRSRXfmA for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8167F1293D8 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p190so272447388wmp.1 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/Q4ceFIVsptW+Ei4BiFpYyp1Pa89ONfFueOqNHb4O5A=; b=V+pBzM9DpWVLo1Kx0SXkTF8SspZZk77hSZunsuWksUKriElTXQp1kfC4g3ViNdjlNi PWUoDmfZP4pmOHM3mjht9uDAlzvGG53XjWA3Gki2r2x3aF6B/gUsGG2DiaSKbXtZQDFl I6FvfPUSPp4akL2xnz6tz/OkX85l/qdbK8vMN9igN136XjvWBek8R6EG8ehXw1NGcpcJ P81+5eRT8RQXsNDSIhOV0LYf/sPp7gDJMvdxnD5j+TgtJ63xoe47j5fhelvHZ2YcU/Bq TFBdsY8GX+TKcGfu0sipfKE/5SfuWxKEKfT0DXvKhiPlmtu8kGVvGfXqPg904mJwCKVL QIqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/Q4ceFIVsptW+Ei4BiFpYyp1Pa89ONfFueOqNHb4O5A=; b=OHpkee0tBb/bwqRtN2D83a0nxXjXa25buRve4Kkro4N/qOdEpEjAwRVaQZK2Rtwyv7 I1qT1I8djg3YRRVXPIZc99MFq2MbvP3Jv7BMAbtTe8eJZW2MgU2HioAIthcvwZiLw10S pjGjfE4X8XQUKLWSWpAw0r6EH8cpNvp8U5vzVZS8dkXkxaS5eV9zYr1vGojoxipH6qcT emd/z2B14EqPQ4vy9caaTQoHD136ABBkKVbt/iMtM2hRA/J2wmkAELNvN0/XZ2LHrD5B y0XCugrTAqkTV0zwQ6GaWI5V8ru87Hg5kH+3QuJNuJCXRJyFjTwftwTlvj/grE1a00kY 0hwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfm0+w3YJ6LgmgzS0UdljzfYoXk8M8wbD1OSgaibIDiut/iGeqwmjRdrhMehXh51GIaJYmOSvV+kKC8DA==
X-Received: by 10.194.175.42 with SMTP id bx10mr4023134wjc.47.1478096994484; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.64.131 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:29:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAdgstS-_CszQZ-0aDf3sOrj4kuJ1MU6HR2Z97OoiecrPkSGdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0141a3dc4cc6050540524667"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/gcvQP9WOll-065FWxlIH540kNMA>
Subject: [6tisch] [6TiSCH] Node Behavior at Boot in SF0
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:29:58 -0000

All,

For the decision when a node is restarted, the SF0 says:

   In order to define a known state after the node is restarted, a CLEAR
   command is issued to each of the neighbor nodes to enable a new
   allocation process.  The 6P Initial Timeout Value provided by SF0
   should allow for the maximum number of TSCH link-layer retries, as
   defined by Section 4.3.4 of [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0-02#ref-I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol>].
TODO/
   REMARK: The initial timeout is currently under discussion.


A little suggestion is DO NOT issue a clear command to previous parent
until the nodes has reserved new cells to its new parent. This is to avoid
the swing if the reservation failed to its new parent and changed back to
previous parent.

What do you think?

Tengfei

-- 
Chang Tengfei,
Pre-Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email