[Tinyos-help] CTP not reporting NET_C_FE_DST_MSG and NET_C_TREE_RCV_BEACON

Morten Tranberg Hansen mth at cs.au.dk
Wed Nov 17 20:36:38 PST 2010

I argue that the application, which is signaled receive from the ctp
forwarding engine, should not necessarily have to tell anybody that it
received this event, and hence CTP should debug the NET_C_FE_DST_MSG.  In
case the application, whichever one is used, decides to report the receive
event (this is application dependent), one of the two "reports" is
redundant.  I just think its wrong to assume that all applications report
the receive event signaled from the ctp forwarding engine.


On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Morten Tranberg Hansen wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
> > Why is the current logic for receive() dependent on the application?
> >
> >
> > The application would either have to send the NET_C_FE_DST_MSG event
> through the CollectionDebug interface or report the reception of a data
> packet in some other way.  With the first choice a processing script for
> collection debug messages would only need to worry about the predefined
> collection debug message types, and not some arbitrary data message.
> I guess this is why I'm confused. If a root node receives a packet for
> forwarding, it signals reception. Therefore, if a root node receives a
> packet for forwarding, you implicitly know it signaled receive(). In terms
> of the log, you'd always see the two paired together, and so the latter is
> redundant. Or is there a case I'm missing?
> Phil

Morten Hansen, http://mortent.dk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-help/attachments/20101118/87572e8b/attachment.htm 

More information about the Tinyos-help mailing list