| Message ID | 20221026093502.602734-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | IEEE 802.15.4: Add coordinator interfaces | expand |
Hi, On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > Hello, > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN management functionality? Or can it act also as a "leave" coordinator... I am not sure about that. However I think we can think about something scheduled later as we can still decide later if we really want that "node" can do that. Regarding to 6LoWPAN I think the current type what "node" interface is as a just a node in a mesh is required, it might depends on if you want routing on IP or "relaying" on MAC (mesh-over vs mesh-under), but I never saw mesh-under in 6LoWPAN. Acked-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com> Thanks. - Alex
Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 10:20 PM Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > > > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are > acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a > bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, > "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. > > Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, > currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN > management functionality? Or can it act also as a "leave" > coordinator... I am not sure about that. > > However I think we can think about something scheduled later as we can > still decide later if we really want that "node" can do that. > Regarding to 6LoWPAN I think the current type what "node" interface is > as a just a node in a mesh is required, it might depends on if you > want routing on IP or "relaying" on MAC (mesh-over vs mesh-under), but *route-over > I never saw mesh-under in 6LoWPAN. > we will see how that works, because you can actually run a 6lowpan interface on the new coordinator type. - Alex
Hello. On 26.10.22 11:34, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hello, > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > Changes since v1: > * Addition of patches 1 and 2. > * Improved the commit message of patch 3. > * Rebased. > * Minor fixes. > > Miquel Raynal (3): > mac802154: Move an skb free within the rx path > mac802154: Clarify an expression > mac802154: Allow the creation of coordinator interfaces > > net/mac802154/iface.c | 15 ++++++++------- > net/mac802154/main.c | 2 +- > net/mac802154/rx.c | 24 +++++++++++------------- > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) These patches have been applied to the wpan-next tree and will be part of the next pull request to net-next. Thanks! regards Stefan Schmidt
Hi Alexander, aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:20:03 -0400: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > > > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are > acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a > bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, > "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. > > Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, > currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN > management functionality? Not "none", because I would expect a NODE to be able to perform minimal management operations, such as: - scanning - requesting an association But in no case it is supposed to: - send beacons - manage associations - be the PAN coordinator - act as a relay > Or can it act also as a "leave" > coordinator... I am not sure about that. > > However I think we can think about something scheduled later as we can > still decide later if we really want that "node" can do that. > Regarding to 6LoWPAN I think the current type what "node" interface is > as a just a node in a mesh is required, it might depends on if you > want routing on IP or "relaying" on MAC (mesh-over vs mesh-under), but > I never saw mesh-under in 6LoWPAN. Yes. > > Acked-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com> Thanks! Miquèl
Hi, On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:52 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:20:03 -0400: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > > > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > > > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > > > > > > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are > > acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a > > bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, > > "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. > > > > Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, > > currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN > > management functionality? > > Not "none", because I would expect a NODE to be able to perform minimal > management operations, such as: > - scanning > - requesting an association > But in no case it is supposed to: > - send beacons > - manage associations > - be the PAN coordinator > - act as a relay > perfect, thanks. But still there is something which I don't get. The split you mentioned about the functionality is for me being a coordinator (IEEE spec) or pan coordinator (IEEE spec) which has the additional functionality of "send beacons, manage assocs, act as relay". So a coordinator (iftype) is a pan coordinator (IEEE spec) and a node (iftype) is a coordinator (IEEE spec), but _only_ when it's associated, before it is just a manually setup mesh node? I hope it's clear when meaning iftype and when meaning IEEE spec, but for the manual setup thing (node iftype) there is no IEEE spec, although it is legal to do it in my opinion. Thanks. - Alex
Hi Alexander, aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Thu, 3 Nov 2022 20:55:38 -0400: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:52 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:20:03 -0400: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > > > > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > > > > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > > > > > > > > > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are > > > acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a > > > bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, > > > "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. > > > > > > Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, > > > currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN > > > management functionality? > > > > Not "none", because I would expect a NODE to be able to perform minimal > > management operations, such as: > > - scanning > > - requesting an association > > But in no case it is supposed to: > > - send beacons > > - manage associations > > - be the PAN coordinator > > - act as a relay > > > > perfect, thanks. But still there is something which I don't get. > > The split you mentioned about the functionality is for me being a > coordinator (IEEE spec) or pan coordinator (IEEE spec) which has the > additional functionality of "send beacons, manage assocs, act as > relay". I would expect any coordinator (IEEE spec) to be able to send beacons and relay (but in this case it only makes sense to send beacons if relaying is supported, IMHO). The PAN coordinator (IEEE spec) only has the following additional capability: managing assocs within the PAN. But in practice it is very likely that it is the one with the greater computational resources and the highest networking capabilities (it is usually the one which acts as a bridge with eg. the internet, says the spec). > So a coordinator (iftype) is a pan coordinator (IEEE spec) and a node > (iftype) is a coordinator (IEEE spec), but _only_ when it's > associated, before it is just a manually setup mesh node? Mmmh, actually this is not how I see it. My current mental model: - COORD (iftype) may act as: * a leaf device (associating with the PAN coordinator, sending data) * a coordinator (like above + beaconing and relaying) once associated * a PAN coordinator (like above + assoc management) if the device started the PAN or after a PAN coordinator handover. Note: physically, it can only be authorized on FFD. - NODE (iftype) may only be a leaf device no matter its association status, this is typically a sensor that sends data. Note: can be authorized on any type of device (FFD or RFD). If I understand correctly, your idea was to change the interface type depending of the role of the device within the network. But IMHO the interface type should only be picked up once for all in the lifetime of the device. Of course we can switch from one to another by quickly turning off and on again the device, but this is not a common use case. We must keep in mind that PAN coordinator handover may happen, which means the interface must stay on but stop acting as the PAN coordinator. Using two different interface types for that is not impossible, but does not seem relevant to me. Would you agree? > I hope it's clear when meaning iftype and when meaning IEEE spec, but > for the manual setup thing (node iftype) there is no IEEE spec, > although it is legal to do it in my opinion. It's clear, no problem. In my previous e-mails, when talking about the interfaces I used the uppercase NODE and COORD keywords, while I used the plain english lowercase "[leaf] node", "coordinator" or "PAN coordinator" words when talking about the IEEE definitions. Thanks, Miquèl
Hi, On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:17 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Thu, 3 Nov 2022 20:55:38 -0400: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:52 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > > > aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:20:03 -0400: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > > > > > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > > > > > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are > > > > acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a > > > > bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, > > > > "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. > > > > > > > > Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, > > > > currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN > > > > management functionality? > > > > > > Not "none", because I would expect a NODE to be able to perform minimal > > > management operations, such as: > > > - scanning > > > - requesting an association > > > But in no case it is supposed to: > > > - send beacons > > > - manage associations > > > - be the PAN coordinator > > > - act as a relay > > > > > > > perfect, thanks. But still there is something which I don't get. > > > > The split you mentioned about the functionality is for me being a > > coordinator (IEEE spec) or pan coordinator (IEEE spec) which has the > > additional functionality of "send beacons, manage assocs, act as > > relay". > > I would expect any coordinator (IEEE spec) to be able to send beacons > and relay (but in this case it only makes sense to send beacons if > relaying is supported, IMHO). > > The PAN coordinator (IEEE spec) only has the following additional > capability: managing assocs within the PAN. But in practice it is very > likely that it is the one with the greater computational resources and > the highest networking capabilities (it is usually the one which acts > as a bridge with eg. the internet, says the spec). > > > So a coordinator (iftype) is a pan coordinator (IEEE spec) and a node > > (iftype) is a coordinator (IEEE spec), but _only_ when it's > > associated, before it is just a manually setup mesh node? > > Mmmh, actually this is not how I see it. My current mental model: > - COORD (iftype) may act as: > * a leaf device (associating with the PAN coordinator, sending data) > * a coordinator (like above + beaconing and relaying) once associated > * a PAN coordinator (like above + assoc management) if the device > started the PAN or after a PAN coordinator handover. > Note: physically, it can only be authorized on FFD. > - NODE (iftype) may only be a leaf device no matter its association > status, this is typically a sensor that sends data. > Note: can be authorized on any type of device (FFD or RFD). > > If I understand correctly, your idea was to change the interface type > depending of the role of the device within the network. But IMHO the > interface type should only be picked up once for all in the lifetime of > the device. Of course we can switch from one to another by quickly > turning off and on again the device, but this is not a common use case. > We must keep in mind that PAN coordinator handover may happen, which > means the interface must stay on but stop acting as the PAN > coordinator. Using two different interface types for that is not > impossible, but does not seem relevant to me. > > Would you agree? > Okay, I think that if you have a node then you never want to act as any PAN coordinators functionality. And yes it seems complicated to switch such functionality during runtime. I am fine with that. The future will show if there are any "special" requirements and how we could react here. > > I hope it's clear when meaning iftype and when meaning IEEE spec, but > > for the manual setup thing (node iftype) there is no IEEE spec, > > although it is legal to do it in my opinion. > > It's clear, no problem. In my previous e-mails, when talking about the > interfaces I used the uppercase NODE and COORD keywords, while I used > the plain english lowercase "[leaf] node", "coordinator" or "PAN > coordinator" words when talking about the IEEE definitions. > That is great, we should use those terms to make the difference. Thanks. - Alex
Hi Alexander, aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Sun, 6 Nov 2022 20:30:48 -0500: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:17 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Thu, 3 Nov 2022 20:55:38 -0400: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:52 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > > > > > aahringo@redhat.com wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:20:03 -0400: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:35 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > These three patches allow the creation of coordinator interfaces, which > > > > > > were already defined without being usable. The idea behind is to use > > > > > > them advertizing PANs through the beaconing feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still don't know how exactly those "leaves" and "non-leaves" are > > > > > acting here regarding the coordinator interfaces. If this is just a > > > > > bit here to set in the interface I am fine with it. But yea, > > > > > "relaying" feature is a project on its own, as we said previously. > > > > > > > > > > Another mail I was asking myself what a node interface is then, > > > > > currently it is a mesh interface with none of those 802.15.4 PAN > > > > > management functionality? > > > > > > > > Not "none", because I would expect a NODE to be able to perform minimal > > > > management operations, such as: > > > > - scanning > > > > - requesting an association > > > > But in no case it is supposed to: > > > > - send beacons > > > > - manage associations > > > > - be the PAN coordinator > > > > - act as a relay > > > > > > > > > > perfect, thanks. But still there is something which I don't get. > > > > > > The split you mentioned about the functionality is for me being a > > > coordinator (IEEE spec) or pan coordinator (IEEE spec) which has the > > > additional functionality of "send beacons, manage assocs, act as > > > relay". > > > > I would expect any coordinator (IEEE spec) to be able to send beacons > > and relay (but in this case it only makes sense to send beacons if > > relaying is supported, IMHO). > > > > The PAN coordinator (IEEE spec) only has the following additional > > capability: managing assocs within the PAN. But in practice it is very > > likely that it is the one with the greater computational resources and > > the highest networking capabilities (it is usually the one which acts > > as a bridge with eg. the internet, says the spec). > > > > > So a coordinator (iftype) is a pan coordinator (IEEE spec) and a node > > > (iftype) is a coordinator (IEEE spec), but _only_ when it's > > > associated, before it is just a manually setup mesh node? > > > > Mmmh, actually this is not how I see it. My current mental model: > > - COORD (iftype) may act as: > > * a leaf device (associating with the PAN coordinator, sending data) > > * a coordinator (like above + beaconing and relaying) once associated > > * a PAN coordinator (like above + assoc management) if the device > > started the PAN or after a PAN coordinator handover. > > Note: physically, it can only be authorized on FFD. > > - NODE (iftype) may only be a leaf device no matter its association > > status, this is typically a sensor that sends data. > > Note: can be authorized on any type of device (FFD or RFD). > > > > If I understand correctly, your idea was to change the interface type > > depending of the role of the device within the network. But IMHO the > > interface type should only be picked up once for all in the lifetime of > > the device. Of course we can switch from one to another by quickly > > turning off and on again the device, but this is not a common use case. > > We must keep in mind that PAN coordinator handover may happen, which > > means the interface must stay on but stop acting as the PAN > > coordinator. Using two different interface types for that is not > > impossible, but does not seem relevant to me. > > > > Would you agree? > > > > Okay, I think that if you have a node then you never want to act as > any PAN coordinators functionality. And yes it seems complicated to > switch such functionality during runtime. I am fine with that. Great! > The > future will show if there are any "special" requirements and how we > could react here. Agreed. > > > I hope it's clear when meaning iftype and when meaning IEEE spec, but > > > for the manual setup thing (node iftype) there is no IEEE spec, > > > although it is legal to do it in my opinion. > > > > It's clear, no problem. In my previous e-mails, when talking about the > > interfaces I used the uppercase NODE and COORD keywords, while I used > > the plain english lowercase "[leaf] node", "coordinator" or "PAN > > coordinator" words when talking about the IEEE definitions. > > > > That is great, we should use those terms to make the difference. Ok, I'll do! Thanks, Miquèl