Hi Alexander, aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sat, 11 Jun 2022 08:05:31 -0400: > 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. Yes. > 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. I was referring to the cluster topology routing logic. The routing logic to reach a device in a PAN that is not directly reachable by the PAN coordinator is the responsibility of the layer 3 in the OSI model, so I believe it's either 6lowpan's duty or even above. Thanks, Miquèl
