1 / 9

CPVs in Mesh formation

CPVs in Mesh formation. Date: 2008-09-08. Authors:. Resolve a number of CIDs on the use of the CPV during mesh formation. CIDs: 428, 429, 924, 496, 1044, 1045, 287, 650. Channel precedence value. Recap: 4 octet field in mesh configuration element Contains a random value of 31 bits

lavey
Download Presentation

CPVs in Mesh formation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CPVs in Mesh formation Date: 2008-09-08 Authors: Dee Denteneer, Philips

  2. Resolve a number of CIDs on the use of the CPV during mesh formation CIDs: 428, 429, 924, 496, 1044, 1045, 287, 650 Dee Denteneer, Philips

  3. Channel precedence value Recap: • 4 octet field in mesh configuration element • Contains a random value of 31 bits • Used in mesh formation and channel switch • We consider mesh formation only: • In case MESH STA detects candidate peers on different channels, it selects the peer with the numerically highest channel precedence value • Several issues in comments Dee Denteneer, Philips

  4. Channel precedence value: issues • Is not what one wants: (429, 924, 650) • 429: MESH STA in mesh should get high priority in channel selection • 650: “Although the sentence here requires MPs to operate the unification of the channel unconditionally, some MPs within a mesh would like to oprate on a different channel, depending on the bridging function within an MP which has multiple radio capability. This channel unification should not be mandated.” Dee Denteneer, Philips

  5. Channel precedence value: timing issues • Leads to detailed timing issues: • 428: • if new MESH STA, joining a mesh, has higher CPV? • “Because the mesh configuration IE is carried in beacon/probe responses, an MP needs to configure it before it does anything else.” Dee Denteneer, Philips

  6. CPV: Multi-radio issues • CID 28, 426, 496, 1167, 650 There seems to be a hole in the use of CPV for multi-radio, as all neighboring MPs are forced to select the MP with the highest CPV. Hence, one radio is ignored. Conversely: if the device has two radios, both are mandated to use the same channel Dee Denteneer, Philips

  7. Having a CPV leads to issues in switching (1044, 1045) • 1044: how is the new CPV chosen • 1045: Having one leads to algorithmic problem during switching (i.e there is a cpv associated with the current channel) • Defines an increasing sequence that ultimately converges and invalidates further use Dee Denteneer, Philips

  8. Suggestion • Remove CPV-usage for mesh formation • Introduce a bit (e.g. in mesh flags field) indicating being part of a mesh or connection to portal • Additionally include some channel characterisation (e.g. number of peers, CSA-measurement) • Use the channel switch protocol to coalesce the mesh to one channel. Dee Denteneer, Philips

  9. Straw poll Should we A: Retain CPV for mesh formation B: Introduce a bit to indicate whether the MESH STA is connected to a portal C: Introduce a bit to indicate whether the MESH STA is part of a mesh and include some channel characterisation (e.g. number of peers, CSA-measurement) as well D: don’t know/care Dee Denteneer, Philips

More Related