Re: [6lo] 6lowpan Fragmentation design team interest?

Hello Behcet :

The LPWAN solution is part of the SCHC document and is now very close to last call.
The basis of bitmap ack is common but there are also differences in the problem space du to frame size and meshing.
So the commonality only goes so far…

Take care;

Pascal

From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: jeudi 20 juillet 2017 09:46
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>; Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>; lo <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] 6lowpan Fragmentation design team interest?

Hi Pascal,
Is fragmentation an issue in lpwan also?
If yes, maybe a joint DT can be formed.
Another question: I think we are talking about 802.15.4 maximum frame size of 127 limitation here, is that right?
Regards,
Behcet

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org<mailto:cabo@tzi.org>> wrote:
We need to do at least the first two of three things:

(1) Write up how fragment forwarding works today (those implementation techniques are currently not documented in a way that is very accessible to new implementers).

(2) Look at the timing considerations governing burst packet transmission to a forwarder and paced fragment forwarding.  Can we derive guidelines for implementers or even standardize something (BCP or PS level)?  This requires finding (and possibly conducting) pertinent research.

(3) Look at the use cases that would benefit from multi-hop fragment retransmission (we have fragment retransmission today, but only single-hop, and only for unicast).  If we find any such use cases, document their characteristics, and try to find solutions that have ways to resolve interactions with (2) and with transport-layer retransmission timers.  This requires way more research.

We also could look at better supporting ECN and other issues that come up in tunneling-like environments.

Grüße, Carsten

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 18:34, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:samitac.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
> At IETF99 6lo wg meeting 6lo-chairs discussed a few questions in order to sense WG interests for further work on fragmentation - especially for route-over topology.
> The details charter for the design team will be finalized soon.
> However, the 6lo-chairs are collecting names for the interested individuals for the design team. We might need 4-5 person design team and prior experience on packet forwarding is helpful.
>
> We are requesting the following :
> * Send your ideas to the list on what you want to see resolved by the fragmentation design team
>
> * If you have any prior experience on 6lowpan fragmentation work on router-over or mesh-under please send information about it
>
> Thanks,
> Gabriel & Samita
>
> Reference slides from today's session:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-6lo-wg-discussion-questions-on-6lo-fragmentation-work-and-scoping-01.pdf
>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-6lo-6lowpan-fragment-forwarding-in-route-over-multi-hop-topology-00.pdf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo