Re: [6lo] [Int-area] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses

Hi Haoyu,

Consider if you have multi tenant network, then will your scheme work?

If yes then how can node A from Service Provider-A can communicate with
node B from Service Provider-B and both are under the same border router or
edge node?

Regards,

Adnan Rashid

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 20:10 Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote:

> Thanks Uma, those are really great use cases. I would like to include them
> in the new revisions. My feeling is that a universal scheme like this can
> benefit many applications/networks (some yet to be explored) and won’t
> introduce unnecessary conflicts and burdens to well-developed HC techniques
> for 6loWPAN and LPWAN.
>
> We look forward to collaborations and suggestions on where we should land
> this work. Please let me know if you are interested.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2021 9:08 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>; int-area@ietf.org; Alexander Pelov <
> a@ackl.io>; 6lo@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
>
>
>
>
>
> Great discussion and inputs from many header compression experts.
>
>
>
> >So maybe for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical
> requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such
> context-less scheme more compelling.
>
>
>
>
>
> I can with certainty give 2 such examples where I was involved multiple
> times w.r.t IPv6 usage:
>
>
>
> 1. A subset of mIOT UEs (this is a huge swath of UEs we are talking about)
> which needs low latency, high bandwidth and is sensitive to battery power.
> For example, a V2X UE, cares for low latency and high bandwidth *but is
> not *necessarily constrained by low battery power (though saving is
> always good). However, an AR/VR UE (advanced handset or 5G enabled headset)
> cares for all 3 (high BW, low latency and battery).
>
>
>
> 2. Another  one is with LEO satellite constellations and communication
> from the end points. Here also only a subset of use cases/devices cares for
> all 3.
>
>
>
> regards!
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:26 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Kerry and Alexander,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the information. It seems the existing standards
> serve their purpose well. But Kerry did mention an interesting point: both
> these networks have low data rate and are insensitive to latency. So maybe
> for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical
> requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such
> context-less scheme more compelling. This is very helpful discussion.
> Thanks a lot!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Haoyu
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2021 9:04 AM
> *To:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> *Cc:* Alexander Pelov <a@ackl.io>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthubert@cisco.com>; int-area@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth
> efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost
> of storage and processing in wireless. It would be great if we could find
> some quantitative research results. Is there any such info available?  It’s
> also good to know that SCHC already supports direct device communications.
> How about 6loWPAN? Same?
>
>
>
> It is important to note that there are several 6lo data links that employ
> RFC6282
>
> header compression including RFC8163, which is wired. (Indeed, I believe
> 6282
>
> is a common denominator of published 6lo RFCs.) So, from my perspective,
> I'd
>
> like your proposal to show why RFC6282 _won't_ work for your application.
>
>
>
> Re: quantitative research results for the comparative energy costs of
> different
>
> 6lo design tradeoffs, I believe these studies do exist and folks in t2trg
> might be
>
> able to point you to specific papers. Most (all?) 6lo data links are
> characterized
>
> by low data rates, so it's important to consider the latency win of IPv6
> header
>
> compression as an additional consideration.
>
>
>
> Regards, Kerry
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fint-area&data=04%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5d70d3eb6e004615e20408d9a535d7df%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637722472949487607%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lIBaLwEqPqd%2FnxpK2l102%2BvPZf8EqQau0ZNvJlx7cdA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>