Re: [6lo] Focusing the charter

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Sat, 15 June 2013 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71A221F9B8C for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5yw5Z1ksCDS4 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8383D21F9953 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A397520BF3; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:14:01 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F4JIO7Hm_u67; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:14:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB8E20C29; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:14:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 623FE26ED247; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:14:00 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:14:00 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Geoff Mulligan <geoff.ietf@mulligan.com>
Message-ID: <20130615071400.GA13739@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Geoff Mulligan <geoff.ietf@mulligan.com>, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>, 6lo@ietf.org
References: <DFF38ACA-5099-4EC0-B1BA-4FA977CC246F@tzi.org> <A13EB629-B1AC-4AA8-9DDB-EDAC691921FE@tzi.org> <CAK=bVC-pSY9qSbMew30HghQttTFuDc4B1hgO10Xsr9AnMtSdhA@mail.gmail.com> <6805.1371231731@sandelman.ca> <51BB5D82.5030602@mulligan.com> <CAK=bVC_uhbtnzc5EooJiZyX3ySrafYzdPZGCWsPL95NeHfJcPA@mail.gmail.com> <51BB8FCC.3050608@mulligan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51BB8FCC.3050608@mulligan.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>, 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Focusing the charter
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:14:17 -0000

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:49:00PM -0600, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> 
> On 06/14/2013 12:21 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> >Geoff,
> >
> >On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Geoff Mulligan
> ><geoff.ietf@mulligan.com> wrote:
> >>Ulrich: Why can't SNMP be used over 6lowpans?  I don't see what would
> >>technically stop it from being used or from working.
> >That is an interesting question that (I think) was part of a
> >to-be-done gap analysis in the COMAN draft. The main question would be
> >if SNMP has too much overhead for constrained devices and networks
> >(both in terms of payload and stack size). Has anyone deployed SNMP in
> >such networks and on constrained devices?
> >
> >Best regards
> >Ulrich
> In my experience with implementing SNMP and also working with folks
> that have done an SNMP like protocol, it is certainly doable to
> implement and use it with constrained devices and networks.  In my
> implementation I did not provide a full ASN.1 compliant system, but
> instead only implemented a limited set of BER to improve stack size
> and I elided some of the OID to improve payload efficiency.

For those interested, here are the details of our SNMP implementation
running on Contiki (and we also share the code):

    http://cnds.eecs.jacobs-university.de/software/contiki-snmp/

That said, I agree with an earlier statement that MIB modules are
primarily needed in order to agree on the semantics of counters that
should become part of IoT protocol implementations so that the
counters have well defined semantics and are comparable.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>