Re: [6lo] [Int-area] 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
>