Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03

[Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,



From: 6lo <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2022 22:26
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) <[e-mail]>; 6lo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03

I’m with you Michael

Though in the case of this proposal I would have one IP address per constrained Device and multiple L2NSA to account for the redundant networks.

I would thus not derive the IP from l2NSA but use a table eg a SCHC rule or a 6LoWPAN context to map the IP from the MAC.

[LI] You are creating some how an overlay here. Not sure how much this will help in the reliability case. You still need to guarantee reliability at L2.


I’m still left to be convinced that someone wants to deploy a network that must be carefully updated (only attach extensions after the last leaf) lest renumbering happens. A network that can not heal and will necessitate restart from scratch when some physical changes happen.

[LI] This is not the case. But we can discuss this more on a reliability thread.

Ciao

L.


I’m open to use cases like the DC sensors. Not sure that the simplicity of routing is worth the complexity in maintenance. Usually people prefer less human hassle and more protocol work than the other way around.

I’d probably deploy RPL there and possibly BIER too.

Keep safe;

Regards,

Pascal


Le 22 août 2022 à 17:44, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :

"Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)" wrote:

-----Original Message----- From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
<pthubert=[e-mail]<mailto:pthubert=[e-mail]>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022
2:18 PM To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 6lo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Subject: Re: [6lo] Call
for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03

Hello Guangpeng

If we take the DC sensors as use case and racks are organized in
trees, and you add a new rack then there will be renumbering.


No, it doesn't. Just attach this new rack to existing racks and don't
move existing racks to this new rack meanwhile. The latter action is
weird and superfluous.

no, what you suggest is weird.
More cables and more tangles.
(I still operate systems in cabinets in data centres)


Do it at L3 and you’re screwed.

BTW, I think derive IPv6 from L2 is not a reliable assumption
considering privacy issues and fake MAC problems. This is why we need
develop a short L3 address in 6lo.

Given a wired situation of sensors in a data center, I have no privacy concerns.
If we are talking about 100baseT1, then I also have no concern with packet size.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
          Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide