Hi Maria Rita and all,
For support RPL structure of parent & children, I agree to think upstream and 
downstream resource reservation separately. But, I'm not sure if we should use 
3-phase protocol for upstream resource reservation, because that means 1/3 
communication cost will be added for one transaction. 
Maybe we can implement the upstream resource reservation in this way. 
(1) The Child sends a Request message to its parent to require adding TX cells, 
including NumCells, but without candidate CellList. Then, the parent choose the 
cells for this Request without any constraint, and send back Response message 
to the Child including the selected CellList; Or(2) The Child sends a Request 
message to its parent to require TX cells, including NumCells and candidate 
CellList, but the CellList is just information instead of requirement. Then the 
parent choose cells for this Request considering the CellList or ignoring the 
CellList, and send back Response message to the Child.
The basic idea is the rule of processing Request message involves the position 
of nodes, i.e. parent or child. A problem could be the new selected cells may 
conflict with the cells already used by the child with its children. I think 
the problem can be solved by using un-overlapped Chunk in the neighborhood.
What do you think?
ThanksQin



 


     On Monday, November 9, 2015 7:33 AM, Maria Rita PALATTELLA 
<maria-rita.palatte...@uni.lu> wrote:
   

 #yiv9198189821 #yiv9198189821 -- _filtered #yiv9198189821 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9198189821 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;}#yiv9198189821 #yiv9198189821 p.yiv9198189821MsoNormal, #yiv9198189821 
li.yiv9198189821MsoNormal, #yiv9198189821 div.yiv9198189821MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9198189821 a:link, 
#yiv9198189821 span.yiv9198189821MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9198189821 a:visited, #yiv9198189821 
span.yiv9198189821MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9198189821 
p.yiv9198189821MsoListParagraph, #yiv9198189821 
li.yiv9198189821MsoListParagraph, #yiv9198189821 
div.yiv9198189821MsoListParagraph 
{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9198189821
 span.yiv9198189821EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9198189821 
.yiv9198189821MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv9198189821 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9198189821 div.yiv9198189821WordSection1 {}#yiv9198189821 
_filtered #yiv9198189821 {} _filtered #yiv9198189821 {margin-left:58.8pt;} 
_filtered #yiv9198189821 {margin-left:1.25in;} _filtered #yiv9198189821 
{margin-left:1.75in;} _filtered #yiv9198189821 {margin-left:2.25in;} _filtered 
#yiv9198189821 {margin-left:2.75in;} _filtered #yiv9198189821 
{margin-left:3.25in;} _filtered #yiv9198189821 {margin-left:3.75in;} _filtered 
#yiv9198189821 {margin-left:4.25in;} _filtered #yiv9198189821 
{margin-left:4.75in;}#yiv9198189821 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv9198189821 ul 
{margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv9198189821 Diego,  Thanks for raising this discussion. 
About:    1)       If we assume the cells should belong to a given container, 
for instance a chunk (owned by a parent node), it makes sense it is always the 
parent to suggest the list of candidate cells. This implies we need to 
re-define better the transaction/negotiation between two neighbors: a)      
Upstream traffic. We will have a 3phases negotiation: the child asks for more 
cells, the parent suggests the list of cells, the child checks the list and 
pick the ones suitable.           b)      Downstream traffic: 2 phases - the 
parent asks and proposes the list of cells, the child checks the list and picks 
the ones suitable.    2)   I remember we discussed about sequence number for 
tracking the transaction already. But while updating the draft, we did not 
include/consider it. Of course, we have to take into account overhead produced 
and thus, scalability of the solution.    Best Regards, Maria Rita    From: 
6tisch [mailto:6tisch-boun...@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Prof. Diego Dujovne
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 7:31 PM
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
Subject: [6tisch] Comments on the 6top-sublayer and 6top-sf0 drafts    Dear 
all,             Regarding the discussion on the 6top-sublayer and the 6top-sf0 
drafts, I would like to point out two items:    - First, If there is a 
preference for the parent's schedule over the child, I think the transaction 
should be started
always from the parent side, but requested (maybe) from the child node. The 
problem I see there is that we must define a cell direction indicator to 
allocate the cells. Until now, we were managing allocation in a
neighbour-to-neighbour basis, so the one requesting allocation defined 
the direction, as Thomas pointed out. Example: Given two nodes, A and B, 
neighbours: If A starts an allocation request towards B, then, it is expected 
that A wants to send traffic to B, so the direction is implicit. Now, If A is 
the child and B the parent, A requires cells in the A->B direction: A asks B to 
allocate cells, in the A->B direction; then B starts an allocation request to A 
asking for cells in the A->B direction. If we do not specify the direction, 
then, the cell will be allocated in the opposite direction. (B->A). One further 
item: I assume that we must always use RPL for 6tisch, and that the RPL DODAG 
is already formed before SF0 starts sending requests to 6top.    - Second: I 
agree with Pascal on adding a sequence number to keep
track of transactions. This increases reliability on top of the already
established non-concurrent transactions+timeout philosophy. 
I'm only worried about the overhead of this approach (longer packet and 
transaction sequence number storage and verification)    What do you think on 
the former comments? Thank you. Regards,                                        
 Diego
 
--  DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125 
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch


  
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to