METHOD FOR DETERMINING A TIMEOUT DELAY IN A NETWORK

Abstract: The invention concerns a method for determining a remote timeout parameter in a network comprising a link between a first bus (A) and a third bus (C), wherein the link is implemented through a first and a second portal connected respectively to the first and the third bus, and wherein the link is modelized as a second bus (B) connected to the first bus and the third bus through respective bridges (I, II); the method comprising the steps, at the level of the first bridge portal of, upon solicitation to provide its contribution to a timeout for a request subaction: (a) determining whether a destination node of the request subaction is located on the link or not; (b) in the affirmative, adding to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum request subaction processing time and link's maximum transmission time; (c) in the negative, adding, to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum request subaction processing time and half of the link's maximum transmission time. The invention also concerns a method similar to the above for determining the timeout contribution of bridges for response subactions.

Description: Method for determining a timeout delay in a network The invention concerns a method for determining a timeout delay in a communication network, in particular a network comprising a link connecting two IEEE 1394 busses. The link may for example be a wireless Hiperlan 2 link. The response timeout problem has been treated as follows in a number of standards or draft standards: (a) Situation in a wired IEEE1394-1995 bus environment: A split transaction is characterized by a request subaction and a subsequent responder subaction using the same transaction label (i.e. an identifier of the transaction). A value in the SPLIT TΪMEOUT control and status register specifies a maximum time period for a particular IEEE1394 node, in which the response to a request has to be generated and sent. If the specified time period (or twice the time period as specified in the IEEE1394a standard respectively) has elapsed without a response being transmitted, the complete transaction fails and the transaction label can be reused („recycled") by the requesting node. Reference: IEEE Standard for a High Performance Serial Bus (IEEE 1394-1995), IEEE New York, 1996 IEEE Standard for a High Performance Serial Bus- Amendment 1 (IEEE1394A-2000), IEEE New York, 2000 (b) Situation in the BRAN Hiperlan 2 1394 SSCS The BRAN Hiperlan 2 IEEE1394 Service Specific Convergence technical specification describes how a Hiperlan 2 (HL2) link can be modeled as a virtual IEEE 1394 bus. Therefore, a HL2 split timeout is defined in a fashion similar to an IEEE Std 1394-1995 split timeout, but with a 200 ms default value instead of 100 ms. An algorithm at the sending portal defines, with help of this SPLIT_TIMEOUT value, a time_ fjife period for each particular asynchronous request or response intended to be transmitted over the HL2 wireless link. The time_of_life parameter will be converted to a time_of_death label attached to each asynchronous packet. This time_of_death label advises the receiver of this packet on the wireless link to discard it, if its intended end of life has been reached. The format of the SPLIT IMEOUT register defined by the SSCS document differs slightly from the specifications IEEE 1394-1995 and IEEE 1394a-2000. Reference: IEEE 1394 Service Specific Convergence Sublayer (DTS/BRAN-00240004-3 V1.1.1), ETSI Project Broadband Radio Access Networks (BRAN), Sophia Antipolis, Sept. 2000 (c) Proposed situation in the IEEE P1394.1 Bridge environment Due to longer transmission delays in a bridge environment, this easy split_timeout mechanism cannot be used anymore if split transactions are intended to pass bridges between busses. Instead of the 'split_timeout' parameter, a 'remote_timeout' parameter is defined. The 'remote .imeout' parameter in an IEEE P 1394.1 bridge environment can be determined by sending a message called a TIMEOUT bridge management message with a particular 'timeout' opcode to a virtual node identifier. The virtual node identifier represents the destination node which, since it is not on the same bus as the requesting node, does not have a physical identifier on the bus of the requesting node. In the response to this packet, the requesting node will receive the accumulated maximum delay times of all intermediate bridges. The draft IEEE P1394.1 distinguishes different delay times in a bridge for requests (MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME) and responses (MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME). These times are implementation dependent and have to be provided by the manufacturer of the bridge. A description of the 'TIMEOUT bridge management message' is given in section 6.7 of P1394.1 Draft D 0.11. Section 4.2 also describes the overall process. Reference: IEEE Draft Standard for High Performance Serial Bus Bridges (IEEE P1394.1 Vers. 0.11) IEEE 1391. 1 working group (standard not yet approved) Accordingly, the problem to solve is the following: When a link such as a HL2 network is represented as an IEEE 1394 bus, a HL2 wireless bridge is used to wirelessly interconnect IEEE 1394 bridge aware nodes. When two bridge aware nodes exchange asynchronous packets over HL2, they cross two bridges. Therefore they have to use a remote timeout that takes into account the two wireless bridges as well as the HL2 transmission time. Note that the term 'link' designates any appropriate configuration of a wireless (or wired) network, not simply a point-to-point link. The invention concerns a method for determining a remote timeout parameter in a network comprising a link between a first bus and a third bus, wherein the link is implemented through a first and a second portal connected respectively to the first and the third bus, and wherein the link is modelized as a second bus connected to the first bus and the third bus through respective bridges; the method comprising the steps, at the level of the first bridge portal of, upon solicitation to provide its contribution to a timeout for a request subaction: (a) determining whether a destination node of the request subaction is located on the link or not; (b) in the affirmative, adding to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum request subaction processing time and link's maximum transmission time; (c) in the negative, adding, to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum request subaction processing time and half of the link's maximum transmission time. When asked to specify its contribution to a timeout interval regarding a future request subaction, a portal checks whether the destination node of the request subaction lies on the wireless link or not. Depending on the answer to this question, the portal decides whether to contribute, in addition to its own processing or forwarding time, half or all of the link maximum transmission time. Indeed, only half of the maximum transmission time is added if it is expected that the request subaction will be forwarded (or came from) the peer portal which will contribute (or has already contributed) the other half of this maximum transmission time. The process above concerns determination of timeout contribution for request subactions. A symmetric approach applies to response subactions. Other characteristics and advantages of the invention will appear through the description of a preferred embodiment of the invention, explained with the help of the unique drawing representing a diagram of the network of the present embodiment, including the different timeout contributions The process for a timeout response message is symmetric. The Timeout handling of Hiperlan 2 Bus Bridges according to the invention is carried out as follows: As illustrated by figure 1 , Hiperlan bus bridges usually have one portal connected to a wired IEEE1394 bus, the other portal being connected to a wireless Hiperlan 2 network. To achieve compatibility to P1394.1 bridges, Hiperlan 2 bridges must be able to process the Timeout Bridge Management Message mentioned in the introduction. Note that the invention could also be applied in other contexts than that of figure 1. In particular, the link is not necessarily a wireless link. For this reason it is necessary that each Hiperlan 2 compliant bus bridge provide values for the MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME and MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME parameters of the timeout message. The MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME parameter represents the sum of time limits that each bridge on the route from a requesting node to a destination node is allotted within which to forward a request subaction to the next bridge. Similarly, the MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME parameter represents the sum of time limits for a response subaction. These two times may be different. The following method describes how these MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME and MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME values are calculated. Two cases are considered: (1) a wired bridge aware device sends packets to a HL2 wireless device connected to the HL2 'bus', or (2) a wired bridge aware device sends packets to another wired bridge aware device over the HL2 bus. (1) Sending packets to a wireless device When a bridge aware device (e.g. node 1) sends a request subaction packet to a HL2 device (e.g. node 3), it will experience following delays: • Wireless bridge 1 internal request forwarding time (basically the processing time of the internal switching fabric) • transmission time within the Hiperlan 2 network Similarly when a bridge aware device (e.g. node 1) sends a response subaction packet to a HL2 device (e.g. node 3), it will experience following delays: • Wireless bridge 1 internal response forwarding time (basically the processing time of the internal switching fabric) • transmission time within the Hiperlan 2 network (identical to the HL2 request subaction transmission time) (2) Sending packets to a wired device over HL2 When a wired bridge aware device (e.g. node 1) sends a request subaction packet to another wired bridge aware device (e.g. node 2) over HL2, it will experience following delays: • Wireless bridge 1 internal request forwarding time (basically the processing time of the internal switching fabric) • transmission time within the Hiperlan 2 network • Wireless bridge 2 internal request forwarding time Similarly when a wired bridge aware device (e.g. node 1) sends a response subaction packet to another wired bridge aware device (e.g. node 2) over HL2, it will experience following delays: • Wireless bridge 1 internal response forwarding time (basically the processing time of the internal switching fabric) • transmission time within the Hiperlan 2 network (identical to the HL2 request subaction transmission time) • Wireless bridge 2 internal response forwarding time The following mechanism is proposed: 1/ When a wireless bridge gets a TIMEOUT request message (bridge management message with opcode = TIMEOUT, q= REQUEST), it checks the destinationjd field of the TIMEOUT bridge management message. • If the destinationjd. busjd field is the HL2 bus busjd, then the wireless bridge shall increase the max_rq_hold_seconds and max_rq_hold_cycles fields with its own MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME plus the HL2 maximum transmission time (1/2 HL2 T s t = 100ms). T s t is the SPLIT JIMEOUT register value. On HL2 it is set to 200 ms (1394 SSCS TS). The bridge portal also sets the 'remote_split_timeout_seconds' and 'remote_split_timeout_cycles l fields of the TIMEOUT request message to the corresponding HL2 SPLIT_TIMEOUT values, since the HL2 bus is the destination bus. These values correspond to the time interval during which the bridge will wait for the response from the wireless destination device. • If the destinationjd. busjd field is not the HL2 bus busjd (i.e. the destinationjd is on the other side of the wireless network), then the wireless bridge shall increase the max q_hold_seconds and max_rq_hold_cycles fields with its own MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME plus half of the HL2 maximum transmission time (1/2(1/2 HL2 T s t )= 50ms). Then the TIMEOUT request message is sent to the next wireless bridge (which will perform a similar processing, so that at the end of the wireless transmission the TIMEOUT request message accumulated both bridge MAX_RQ_FORWARD_TIME plus the HL2 maximum transmission time). Similarly: 2/ When a wireless bridge gets a TIMEOUT response message (bridge management message with opcode = TIMEOUT, q= RESPONSE), it shall check the destinationjd field of the TIMEOUT bridge management message (see 6.4 of DO.11). • If the destinationjd. busjd field is the HL2 bus busjd, then the wireless bridge shall increase the max_resp_hoId_seconds and max_resp_hold_cycles fields with its own MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME plus the HL2 maximum transmission time (1/2 HL2 T s t = 100ms) • If the destination Jd. bus _/ field is not the HL2 bus busjd (i.e. the destinationjd is on the other side of the wireless network), then the wireless bridge shall increase the max_resp_hold_seconds and maxjOsp_hold_cycles fields with its own MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME plus half of the HL2 maximum transmission time (1/2(1/2 HL2 T s t )= 50ms). Then the TIMEOUT response message is sent to the next wireless bridge (which will perform a similar processing, so that at the end of the wireless transmission the TIMEOUT response message accumulated both bridge MAX_RESP_FORWARD_TIME plus the HL2 maximum transmission time). In summary, for asynchronous traffic between a wired 1394 bus A over a first Hiperlan 2 bus bridge I, a wireless Hiperlan 2 network B, a second Hiperlan 2 bus bridge II and a wired 1394 bus C, the HL bridge I will add the first half, the HL bridge II will add the second half to the maximum transmission delay of the wireless bus B. For asynchronous traffic between a wired 1394 bus A device and a HL2 bus device over a wireless bridge I, the HL bridge I will add the whole maximum transmission delay of the wireless bus B to its own internal maximum forward time. By the adding the maximum transmission delay to maximum forward times, it is possible to hide the special properties of a wireless network to bridge aware node. In this case it will see no differences if its request is routed via a wired, IEEE1394.1 compliant bridge or via a Hiperlan 2 bridge. The embodiment enables bridge aware nodes to work seamlessly over HL2 bridges using only P1394.1 bridge-command mechanisms.

Claims: Claims 1. Method for determining a remote timeout parameter in a network comprising a link between a first bus (A) and a third bus (C), wherein the link is implemented through a first and a second portal connected respectively to the first and the third bus, and wherein the link is modelized as a second bus (B) connected to the first bus and the third bus through respective bridges (I, II); the method comprising the steps, at the level of the first bridge portal of, upon solicitation to provide its contribution to a timeout for a request subaction: (a) determining whether a destination node of the request subaction is located on the link or not; (b) in the affirmative, adding to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum request subaction processing time and link's maximum transmission time; (c) in the negative, adding, to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum request subaction processing time and half of the link's maximum transmission time. 2. Method according to claim 1 , wherein, further to step (c), the second bridge portal adds, as its contribution, its own maximum request subaction processing time and half of the wireless link's maximum transmission time. 3. Method according to one of the claims 1 or 2, wherein the link is a Hiperlan 2 wireless network. 4. Method according to claim 3, wherein the maximum transmission time of the wireless link is equal to half of the Hiperlan 2 IEEE 1394 SSCS 'SPLIT IMEOUT' register value of a portal. 5. Method according to one of the claims 1 to 4, wherein the timeout contribution from the bridges is solicited through a timeout request message. 6. Method according to claim 5, wherein, further to step (b), the first bridge portal sets remote_splitJ:imeout fields of the timeout request message to values in accordance with the Hiperlan 2 IEEE 1394 SSCS 'SPLIT IMEOUT register value of the first portal. 7. Method for determining a remote timeout parameter in a network comprising a link between a first bus (A) and a third bus (C), wherein the link is implemented through a first and a second portal connected respectively to the first and the third bus, and wherein the link is modelized as a second bus (B) connected to the first bus and the third bus through respective bridges (I, II); the method comprising the steps, at the level of the first bridge portal, upon solicitation to provide its contribution to a timeout for a response subaction: (a) determining whether a destination node of the response subaction is located on the link or not; (b) in the affirmative, adding to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum response subaction processing time and the link's maximum transmission time; (c) in the negative, adding, to the timeout contribution: the first bridge portal's maximum response subaction processing time and half of the link's maximum transmission time, and forwarding the message to the second bridge portal. 8. Method according to claim 7, wherein, further to step (c), the second bridge portal adds as its contribution its own maximum response subaction processing time and half of the wireless link's maximum transmission time. 9. Method according to one of the claims 7 or 8, wherein the link is a wireless Hiperlan 2 network. 10. Method according to claim 9, wherein the maximum transmission time of the wireless link is equal to half of the Hiperlan 2 IEEE 1394 SSCS 'SPLIT_TIMEOUT' register value of a portal.

Inventors: HAUPT DIETER, STRAUB GILLES, HAUPT, DIETER, STRAUB, GILLES
Applicants: HAUPT DIETER, STRAUB GILLES, THOMSON LICENSING SA, HAUPT, DIETER, STRAUB, GILLES
Application year: 2001
Main classification: H04L12
IPC codes: H04L12