Re: [6lo] Request for Ethertype for 6lowpan-encoded IPv6

[Gabriel Montenegro <[e-mail]>]

No hats opinion.

I'm with Robert and others: one Ethertype is enough.  

The rest are editorial comments:

Title: Don't like citing RFC's in the title. Just give the indication that it is the 6lo adaptation/encapsulation layer (or simply "6lo" layer).

As for the fact that there is ongoing work on this adaptation layer: we did discuss this with Ralph and he added "... may be extended and modified by future IETF standards document[s]".

I think that's enough. No need to mention IANA dispatch or the paging document, as both of these will indicate that they modify RFC4944 eventually. Even if those are mentioned, there's no need to mention 6loRH as that is once removed from the paging document.

Thanks,

Gabriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Don Sturek
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 13:03
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; Paul Duffy (paduffy)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [6lo] Request for Ethertype for 6lowpan-encoded IPv6
> 
> Hi Pascal,
> 
> For the past several IEEE 802 meetings, the IEEE 802.15 group has held a
> joint meeting with IEEE 802.1 (who seem to be the main point of contact for
> EtherTypes).  This topic of a 6LoWPAN EtherType has been one of the points
> of discussion (along with IEEE 802.15's proposal to finally create a link layer
> interface over IEEE 802.15.4)
> 
> Here is what IEEE 802.1 told us with regard to an EtherType for 6LoWPAN
> (which we asked for via IEEE 802.15 and were turned down, asked for from
> Wi-SUN and were turned down then were told to ask IETF to request it):
> 1.   They won't allocate one unless your protocol provides for sub-typing
> (e.g. The dispatch code in 6LoWPAN/6lo)
> 2.   They have very few so they really no longer allocate EtherTypes easily
> 3.   If they were to allocate an EtherType, they want the receiving
> organization to be able to cover some clearly defined set of uses (e.g.
> Existing 6LoWPAN, 6lo as it is currently defined plus some idea of how to
> extend it assuming you are unlikely to get other EtherTypes).
> 
> I just scanned your 6loRH draft.  Do you re-use the RFC 4944/RFC 6282
> Protocol Dispatch?  Is it possible to just use a new Dispatch from
> 4944/6282 along with a 6LoWPAN/6lo EtherType to cover what you want?
> 
> Feel free to propose 2 EtherTypes but you might want to attend an
> upcoming
> IEEE 802 meeting to defend that decision.   I think with Ralph's draft
> there will be clear reasons to provide a 6LoWPAN/6lo EtherType. If that can
> be made to cover what you need that would the best solution that is the
> ideal situation (and if not, we should discuss since that means the dispatch
> mechanism in 4944/6282 should be re-thought to ensure we have enough
> expansion capability going forward)
> 
> One concern I have on your draft is the intermingling of 6lo and RPL by the
> way.  Not having read the draft in detail it could be that a 6loWPAN/6lo
> EtherType really doesn't well cover what you are trying to do here anyway.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/23/16 12:31 PM, "6lo on behalf of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >I'm not following you Paul
> >
> >In one hand you claim that an ethertype is hard to get and in the other
> >you are asking to use that bullet with an incomplete scope? What will
> >the next protocol that needs this new work do?
> >
> >Pascal
> >
> >> Le 23 févr. 2016 à 21:27, Paul Duffy (paduffy) <[e-mail]> a
> >>écrit :
> >>
> >>> On 2/23/2016 3:20 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> >>> Hello Ralph
> >>>
> >>> The 6LoRH work is getting ready for last call.
> >>>
> >>> If the demand comes from environments that use RPL, It should most
> >>>certainly be included.
> >>>
> >>> What is the requirement in terms of time frame?
> >>
> >> Immediate if possible.    This request is coming after months of false
> >>starts with IEEE.
> >>
> >> 6LoRH is not in scope of the impacted effort.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Pascal
> >>>
> >>>> Le 22 févr. 2016 à 16:15, Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]> a
> >>>>écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 7:59 AM 2/22/16, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >>>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hello Ralph and Paul:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Substantive:
> >>>>> -----------------
> >>>>> The draft is specific that the ethertype means what it names 6loENC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) What would be the position of new work such as
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ft
> >>>>> ools.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch&data=01%7c0
> >>>>>
> 1%7cGabriel.Montenegro%40microsoft.com%7c7fcf05135273416a120408d33
> >>>>>
> c94bdaa%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Vfu5oRzfV%2b
> h
> >>>>> q3g1y%2bTYd1Lu8xx3nBokd6sjECuL8XC8%3d and
> >>>>> -
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools.iet
> f.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-thubert-6lo-inner-
> compression&data=01%7c01%7cGabriel.Montenegro%40microsoft.com%7c7f
> cf05135273416a120408d33c94bdaa%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47
> %7c1&sdata=mZgsMUUC8rd7GgexuTOgPMNFZUXvssy9ycXIhYukRFc%3d ?
> >>>> I would consider those documents to be out of scope of this
> >>>>document as "future work".  One way to handle those extensions would
> >>>>be to have them include explicit text about applying to IPv6 as
> >>>>carried by the Ethertype assigned through draft-droms-6lo-ethertype-
> request.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2) The group flirted with Jonathan's idea of having more than one
> >>>>>ethertype. For instance, we could have an ethertype that is more
> >>>>>specific than "anything 6loENC can encode with paging" to more
> >>>>>specific stuff that could be even better compressed. An example
> >>>>>that was discussed was a route-over ethertype and a mesh-under
> >>>>>ethertype so for instance page 1 does not have to be signaled in a
> >>>>>route-over ethertype.
> >>>>> Could that be envisioned?
> >>>> I could imagine defining additional Ethertypes but I would consider
> >>>>those extensions to be out of scope of this document, as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Ralph
> >>>>
> >>>>> Typos:
> >>>>> ---------
> >>>>> Datatgrams
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pascal
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> >>>>>> Sent: vendredi 19 février 2016 20:55
> >>>>>> To: [e-mail] WG <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Subject: Request for Ethertype for 6lowpan-encoded IPv6
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (BCC: [e-mail])
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Paul Duffy and I recently published
> >>>>>>draft-droms-6lo-ethertype-request-00.
> >>>>>> The purpose of this document is to demonstrate IETF consensus for
> >>>>>>requesting an Ethertype to be used with IPv6 datagrams encoded
> >>>>>>according  to RFC 4944/6282, in L2 protocols that have a protocol
> >>>>>>switch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We'd like to move this document along quickly, because Wi-SUN
> >>>>>>Alliance  would like to specify the Ethertype in the Wi-SUN FAN
> >>>>>>specification.  Please  take a look at the document (it's barely
> >>>>>>over 3 pages, including all the
> >>>>>> boilerplate) and respond to the 6lo WG mailing list with comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Ralph
> >>> .
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >6lo mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ie
> >tf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2f6lo&data=01%7c01%7cGabriel.Montenegro
> %40m
> >icrosoft.com%7c7fcf05135273416a120408d33c94bdaa%7c72f988bf86f141af9
> 1ab2
> >d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=joGEwHNx0QVSwb1E7KkvEiYHBHrP7cedS7FNT16
> w8%2bw%3d
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.iet
> f.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2f6lo&data=01%7c01%7cGabriel.Montenegro%4
> 0microsoft.com%7c7fcf05135273416a120408d33c94bdaa%7c72f988bf86f141a
> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=joGEwHNx0QVSwb1E7KkvEiYHBHrP7cedS7F
> NT16w8%2bw%3d