IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-05.txt

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 07:46 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AC61A19F1; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e3Mu1K6smVXk; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 048FC1A0404; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414482374; x=1415691974; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XYOLOGNTeYDGRWEujgxrfX7CMO/cvE2t3AVFC4uxP50=; b=hcRdQXGK0hkZ+Zd4PBaHy7T4TV0nX86u3J+Wd+6BBrRzCxuTX99z36Tj mYRrMk6v20Ef4xYROE5hod2jzaErSrAR7ZHtQnwXQY2t0COh8S4BjzoX/ 21CpwViYpF7ew9jclNgTU05ZoOmcWaZ4lG26N8Z2iQHfzjUFpfK3MUAtt 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAJRIT1StJV2a/2dsb2JhbABcgw6BLNV4AoEYFgF9hAMBAQMBdwIQAgEIDjgyJQIEDgWIOAnLPwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGJA6GzMHgy2BHgEEkgeLWoExg0mKFYcfgjSBRGyCSwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,801,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="90934446"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2014 07:46:13 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9S7kD22012945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:46:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.207]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:46:12 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP8gMrAV2gakhP90atgtUiqheORZxEIl2wgABiY/CAAFc7AIAARnWAgABA9wD//78Pqw==
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:46:11 +0000
Message-ID: <8B945CD1-B841-4753-9CCE-BFC6FCEFE7E7@cisco.com>
References: <20141027162913.19095.85860.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A22B96@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <861C280A4EB34046A0D9A4324E4E82240148D6B8@de08ex3001.global.ds.honeywell.com> <097025FF-6076-45F0-8A2E-0FDA08335CB0@tzi.org> <861C280A4EB34046A0D9A4324E4E82240148D7EB@de08ex3001.global.ds.honeywell.com>, <12467F5C-9C5E-40F0-8D6C-0CEB8978DCC3@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <12467F5C-9C5E-40F0-8D6C-0CEB8978DCC3@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/BYSSBId0R1UKiSrQCX83xqlJOZc
Cc: "Brett, Patricia (PA62)" <patricia.brett@honeywell.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-05.txt
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo 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: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:46:15 -0000

Same here, Pat. There is no anti-mesh-under intention. From the L3 perspective the mesh under looks like one hop and we must cover that case, certainly!

We already have requirements that apply to one L3 hop like the capability to proxy on the backbone, but nothing that is specific to a multi L2 hops mesh under.

If you are aware of requirements that we missed please let us know... Now is the time !

Pascal

Le 28 oct. 2014 à 07:38, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> a écrit :

>> Mesh under been in use and working for years in an IEC wireless standard for a low power network. 
>> As such it should be an option.
> 
> Certainly.  RFC 6775 was designed to be applicable to both mesh-under and route-over routing.
> 
> E.g., it starts out saying:
> 
>> 1.3.  Goals and Assumptions
>> 
>>   The document has the following main goals and assumptions.
>> 
>>   Goals:
>> 
>>   o  Optimize Neighbor Discovery with a mechanism that is minimal yet
>>      sufficient for the operation in both mesh-under and route-over
>>      configurations.
>> […]
> 
> 
> Now, if there is something amiss about the mesh-under support in RFC 6775, that would be good to know.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email