Hi Yatch and all, I think 6top as a sublayer should support broadcast/multicast, but it may not necessary for 6P to support scheduling cells for broadcast/multicast dynamically. There may be two solutions for broadcast/multicast. One is use EB cell in slotframe 0, because it is not supposed that every EB cell will be used to broadcast TSCH EB. Another way is to use hardcell reservation. What do you think? ThanksQin
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:21 PM, Yasuyuki Tanaka <yasuyuki9.tan...@toshiba.co.jp> wrote: Thank you, Thomas. Let me add comments on a couple of the ppt slides in advance, which could save time of the coming meeting, I hope...: The ppt sides Thomas provided: https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/raw/c9bd4d78fa452a0588abefc104d08520d32e0c26/161209_webex/slides_161209_webex.ppt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (6P unclarities 2 [1/4], slide-19) ppt> Section 4.2.2: [Q] Why must the value of SeqNum increment *by ppt> exactly one* at each new 6P request to a certain neighbor? ppt> ppt> -> Why not? I think "MUST" is too strict. I thought an idea behind that requirement was to try to have different SeqNum to previous requests. If this was true, "incrementing by exactly one at each new 6P request" could be just an example of implementation. In addition, there is no validation defined in the draft to see if the SeqNum of a receiving request is off by one from the previous one. If it was a really "MUST" thing, some validation should be in place, shouldn't it? But, of course, such a validation is not practical at all since a request could be lost in the air. I may be wrong; just wanted to know the reason of the restriction, "MUST increment by exactly one at each new 6P request issued to the same neighbor." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ppt> [C] I'd suggest listing only valid combinations of CellOption ppt> bits and mentioning others are invalid. ppt> -> isn’t that policy? Indeed, 6P doesn't care about the meanings of bits in CellOptions in its operation. However, the definitions in Figure 11 are RECOMMENDED by the draft. I cannot see any reason to have ineffective CellOptions values separately in the recommendation... draft> 4.2.6. 6P CellOptions draft> (snip) draft> Figure 11 contains the RECOMMENDED meaning of the 6P draft> CellOptions field for the 6P STATUS and 6P LIST requests. In this context, we may have to define a return code to respond to CellOptions invalid to a corresponding SF, something like RC_ERR_CELL_OPTIONS. Or, should RC_ERR (generic error) be returned? In any case, it'd be nice to have some text on checking CellOptions value in Section 4.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (6P unclarities 2 [4/4], slide-22) ppt> [C] I'm not sure typical use cases of the LIST operation. When ppt> does a SF use STATUS and LIST...? I think these commands would be ppt> useful for the purpose of management or administration. But, it's ppt> not within the scope of SF, is it? I'd be nice that a typical use ppt> case of LIST is provided in the text. ppt> -> Recover after reset Such recovery doesn't work due to generation inconsistency. Let's say, there are two 6P nodes, Node A and Node B. Node A resets after having some Add or Delete operations with node B. Now, both of GTX and GRX on Node A are 0b00. At least GTX or GRX on Node B is either 0b01 or 0b10. Then, Node A sends a Status request to Node B for recovery. Node B responds with RC_ERR_GEN since GAB and GBA of the request are zero while node-B has non-zero GTX and/or non-zero GRX. The Status request fails. The same thing will happen to a List request. In the end, Node A cannot recover the cells. Here is an excerpt of Section 4.3.11.3 of draft-03: draft> Upon receiving a 6P message, a node MUST do the following draft> checks: draft> draft> o When node B receives a 6P Request of 6P confirmation from node A, draft> it verifies that GAB==GRX and GBA==GTX. draft> draft> (snip) draft> draft> If any of these comparisons is false, the node has detected a draft> schedule generation inconsistency. draft> draft> When a schedule generation inconsistency is detected: draft> draft> o If the code of the 6P Request is different from CMD_CLEAR, the draft> node MUST reply with error code RC_ERR_GEN. This is related to the topic in the thread of "Handling Inconsistent Allocation in 6P." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ppt> - Is there any plan for 6P to support the following cells? ppt> ppt> - a cell whose macNodeAddress is a group MAC address or a ppt> 16-bit multicast address ppt> -> No. Use case? A use-case in my mind is allocating cells for IPv6 multicast. RFC 4944 defines the mapping rule between IPv6 multicast address and IEEE 802.15.4 16-bit multicast address. # I'm not sure the exact meaning of "mesh-enabled LoWPAN" in Section 9 # of RFC 4944, though... I think Section 9 could be applied to a # 6TiSCH network. I think this has some potential to enable to dynamically allocate cells dedicated to ff02::1a (all-RPL-node) or ff0X::fc (ALL_MPL_FORWARDERS), for example. Now, I understand this is out of scope of the draft at this point as well as allocating cells for broadcast. I'm a person interested in multicast, by the way ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ppt> - Is there any plan for 6P to support the following cells? ppt> (snip) ppt> - a dedicated TX cell to multiple recipients ppt> -> IEEE802.15.4e question, multiple cells? Tero told me that such a TX cell is possible as per the IEEE 802.15.4 specification. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg04909.html mail> > Therefore, in theory, we may have a dedicated (non-shared) TX mail> > cell whose macNodeAddress is the broadcast address. mail> mail> Yes. I.e. you are the only one allowed to send to that link, but mail> there are multiple listeneres in there. So, as it does not have mail> shared bit on, there will not be other transmitters, but there mail> can be multiple listeners on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ppt> - Is there any plan for 6P to support the following cells? ppt> (snip) ppt> - a RX cell shared with multiple senders ppt> -> supported OK, then another question comes up... how is a cell having multiple senders (or multiple recipients) allocated or deallocated? For example, one of senders may request to delete such a cell with a recipient. However, the recipient is not supposed to delete the cell by the request alone since there are other senders on the cell. If it's supported, some explanation would be needed, about how it works, although this kind of detail may be up to SF. This could be related to the topic about what value is set to "macNodeAddress" as a result of 6P Add transaction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's it! Thanks. Best, Yatch _______________________________________________ 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