Re: [PATCH wpan-next 1/6] net: ieee802154: Drop coordinator interface type

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:44 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> > > >
> > > >   - How is chosen the beacon order? Should we have a default value?
> > > >     Should we default to 15 (not on a beacon enabled PAN)? Should we be
> > > >     able to update this value during the lifetime of the PAN?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is there no mib default value for this?
>
> I didn't find anything. I suppose we can ask for that parameter at PAN
> creation, but otherwise I'll keep a backward compatible value: 15,
> which means that the PAN is not beacon enabled (like today, basically).
>

I hope it is not necessary to answer this question, see below.

> > >
> > > >   - The spec talks about the cluster topology, where a coordinator that
> > > >     just associated to a PAN starts emitting beacons, which may enable
> > > >     other devices in its range to ask to join the PAN (increased area
> > > >     coverage). But then, there is no information about how the newly
> > > >     added device should do to join the PAN coordinator which is anyway
> > > >     out of range to require the association, transmit data, etc. Any
> > > >     idea how this is supposed to work?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we should maybe add a feature for this later if we don't know
> > > how it is supposed to work or there are still open questions and first
> > > introduce the manual setup. After that, maybe things will become
> > > clearer and we can add support for this part. Is this okay?
> >
> > *I also think that this can be done in user space by a daemon by
> > triggering netlink commands for scan/assoc/etc. (manual setup) and
> > providing such functionality as mentioned by the spec (auto creation
> > of pan, assoc with pan). Things which are unclear here are then moved
> > to the user as the operations for scan/assoc/etc. will not be
> > different or at least parameterized. The point here is that providing
> > the minimum basic functionality should be done at first, then we can
> > look at how to realize such handling (either in kernel or user space).
>
> Actually this is none of the 802.15.4 MAC layer business. I believe
> this is the upper layer duty to make this interoperability work,
> namely, 6lowpan?

I am not sure if I understand your answer, I meant that if
"coordinator" or "PAN coordinator" depends on whatever, if somebody is
running a "coordinator" software in the background on top of a coord
interface.
The kernel offers the functionality for scan/assoc/etc. (offers link
quality, etc. _statistics_ and not _heuristic_) which will be used by
this software to whatever the user defines to realize this behaviour
as it is user specific.

Sure linux-wpan, should then provide at least a standard piece of
software for it.

This has in my opinion nothing to do with 6lowpan.

- Alex




[Index of Archives]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux