Re: [6lowapp] the role of gateway nodes

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Fri, 27 November 2009 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jvasseur@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowapp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED863A694A for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:00:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RMqbpBezfy03 for <6lowapp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5233A68D4 for <6lowapp@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:00:29 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAE+GD0urRN+J/2dsb2JhbAC9Bpc4hDEE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,302,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="54747025"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2009 16:00:24 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nARG0C4Z007650; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:00:23 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.231.93]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:00:19 +0100
Received: from ams-jvasseur-8714.cisco.com ([10.55.201.133]) by xfe-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:00:18 +0100
Message-Id: <B6EE4832-C2F8-45BA-8284-57639F7CB9D2@cisco.com>
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <D52720BD-AC94-499C-81B0-875665FA971D@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:00:17 +0100
References: <1220434074.5410511259332678903.JavaMail.root@polinya> <D52720BD-AC94-499C-81B0-875665FA971D@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2009 16:00:19.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7B55CD0:01CA6F7A]
Cc: "6lowapp@ietf.org" <6lowapp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowapp] the role of gateway nodes
X-BeenThere: 6lowapp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Application protocols for constrained nodes and networks <6lowapp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowapp>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowapp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp>, <mailto:6lowapp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:00:30 -0000

On Nov 27, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> On Nov 27, 2009, at 15:37, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote:
>
>> what's the approach at 6LowApp? anyone knows ongoing work on that  
>> issue?
>
> I would summarize the thinking that went into the BOF as follows:
>
> Some nodes in a CE (constrained environment) may actually be not  
> that constrained (as nodes and with respect to their network).   
> These can directly speak the appropriate application protocol (HTTP,  
> SNMP, XMPP, SIP) to some correspondent node outside (or inside) the  
> CE.  (We didn't put this on the slides because that is nothing new.)
>
> Some nodes may want to run the constrained application protocol  
> (called CoAP on the BOF slides) right to a correspondent node on the  
> outside.  See the bottom half of slide 13 in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/6lowapp-0.pdf 
>  as well as the use of CoAP inside the CE (if we had two CEs, this  
> also could be between CEs).
>
> In these two cases, no intermediary (above the IP layer) is involved.
>
> To connect constrained nodes that want to talk CoAP to correspondent  
> nodes outside the CE that want to speak established application  
> protocols, an intermediary is required.  We purposely tried to avoid  
> calling this a gateway, proxy, translator, server, or whatever,  
> because each of these seems to invoke some inappropriate  
> connotations of big hunks of hardware.  Instead we invented the name  
> CoGII (Constrained-node to General Internet Intermediary).  In a  
> 6LoWPAN, this could be the job of a device as simple as an Edge  
> Router, or it could be placed in a quite different position (as CoAP  
> is an Internet-based protocol, there is no restriction on the  
> placement of the CoGII).
>

Just a side note we may want to use the same terminology accross all  
WGs: 6LoWPAN refers to something specific, in ROLL we use LLN (Low  
power and Lossy Networks), I saw CEnet, ... how about using one  
terminology ?

Thanks.

JP.

> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> 6lowapp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp