IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Wed, 10 November 2021 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
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 0F5693A0C9F; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:04:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
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 Vu3RgtpPnAtn; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 098E03A0CB3; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id c3so3610584iob.6; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:04:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sTWU8cX7gi+oO6zr76lJHSJpPHnAXtfg3QmhOYmvbqo=; b=dWSsF63ZU8SO+ZB/zwHRuGUZB+UWEj+0ysAHY2Ft9wrJoWDFvYkKkYF7OM49K9om6g DE0Sp7PKt024DeK5XJY/f80S7s5DvJIuLzu3uCPQXNdMWxMBwBqp6qTHxHIQBQQLhex1 JzO5mNYQxheIyhbJj6qy6tnheYYI3Q0+Lq1iU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sTWU8cX7gi+oO6zr76lJHSJpPHnAXtfg3QmhOYmvbqo=; b=6WZHG5gtHiZwNvku5eEkWH2H7n+xP6YcUMnRUDHnOvHB1zpPUfYxhoqEAN1B73gnqA YUd223ymYjIecfUlQe3hxkfxyRNYgPn0H0dwOlE/ComQCDvkkMrvvDk+mDn7PUiwmpCz Z3ET7mB6USnZcoBO1rWswU7ShboyFdOSYxBDaypi0lXxhwQjZ7o3H6DcO2agEXoKOilJ iL2ClAE3EaKRplhw3gF+51Ojdmh/sUcNV7sCVtto+d2Kxlv831Z6XUwteG5fLzkFbcoh XXgDwHa3pP1I8i3cx7YcAk80oI1cwAC5FThEsZKDkPSeGZv12QlI6JTnEVFrf87cylcw 1A3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DTSaYFt/3wMCuMNrfy6Dv5htOzd7CneM6UzZgtmEfz9e/fz3q XXBGfVO94mjKXLyHxIYSlzXnrvdyXEbi6u7+/n0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwE3lz3XdyQ8ou9OC7u5jMe1mwscB9cxkHqTkNgW9HRK/Y0GVaeLkPa2PFwgbadbrOxMFF0DQbWbOs4HtpTu/I=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9356:: with SMTP id i22mr386914ioo.159.1636563842111; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 09:04:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b9d172392013f578cdbd8e7120f6154e.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <BY3PR13MB47870F8078E156139DE953769ABC9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <16151.1634581572@localhost> <BY3PR13MB4787D81E9B56FBBEA62EA28A9ABC9@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR13MB4787BBE8A65861E0927E615C9A919@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <5CB1DC41-6BB9-4251-A080-207120F0311E@cisco.com> <BY3PR13MB47875C6A873BBA1FDD9F9E9F9A929@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CACQW0EovGkJFiiN29Y3yadVQiXLyjHu6jsFJWYvZv+Rwu7JSqg@mail.gmail.com> <BY3PR13MB4787C4DF1D74A7BD79995BD39A939@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR13MB4787C4DF1D74A7BD79995BD39A939@BY3PR13MB4787.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:03:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CABOxzu3nFw1AxCiYv1ao2Dui_JgPrQK6My4xFWjiUm+_fMGOKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Cc: Alexander Pelov <a@ackl.io>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000761f0d05d07236f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/NM_ewnPId1pccvxg2wpBF1x-_9s>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:04:09 -0000

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>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email