Re: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)

<minjun.xi@nokia.com> Fri, 23 September 2011 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <minjun.xi@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AAD21F8B5C for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BbkInH3+BDVE for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73CED21F8B5A for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p8N7hRwF011046; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:43:32 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:42:49 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.58) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:42:48 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-051.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.1.146]) by 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.58]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:42:47 +0200
From: <minjun.xi@nokia.com>
To: <esko.dijk@philips.com>, <johanna.1.nieminen@nokia.com>, <cabo@tzi.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)
Thread-Index: AQHMdtPRK6TlyPrgJ0Sk4OZWWwl9nZVZ1OEA//+gBMCAASWZgA==
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:42:46 +0000
Message-ID: <AEA99A445E158B46803ACDAD11D790B4064CA0DC@008-AM1MPN1-051.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <A337AA36B3B96E4D853E6182B2F27AE2D1671A068A@NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local> <CAA155EF.862%minjun.xi@nokia.com> <A337AA36B3B96E4D853E6182B2F27AE2D16726B930@NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local>
In-Reply-To: <A337AA36B3B96E4D853E6182B2F27AE2D16726B930@NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-titus-version: 3.3.8.1
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Company Confidential; Project=None;
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7IvZFaL30hHLuUAxAOm4SFNChXnT0/AcTwyeJM2sEcAOBgdlmDQL9EA9LeZHenv+sDRJmUBNpxGjyTaDoMRTtG5VyHYxtVde4ZZC5l6VEx7qFp+BMMi/JteiK1UWsUbaJXTFPytCrbYHt5WD6aIIF4cQ0MmR926vTb6o91KRMD12HleZIs6IdAkjXJQ8tEbKa0yiFMMUIXI5TEAF6rZJwom91wRodbx+WbzYnW8ir2f4+L6RbCXoWIzJGjyjpgSFXSiMhSPTV2MQtqOhgA40eAFM=
x-originating-ip: [10.233.20.40]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01CC7A07.702BCC20"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2011 07:42:49.0112 (UTC) FILETIME=[645AB980:01CC79C4]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft)
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:41:00 -0000

Sorry about that, I misunderstood your question. I have no idea about which
prefix should be generated by the 6LBR, which is really one big issue. 
--
Best Regards,
Minjun, Xi
Nokia Research Center

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Dijk, Esko [mailto:esko.dijk@philips.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:59 PM
To: Xi Minjun (Nokia-NRC/Beijing); Nieminen Johanna.1 (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki);
cabo@tzi.org
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over
BT-LE draft)

Hello  Minjun,

I don't see an issue in IPv6 address configuration in 6LNs / section 3.2.1.
Rather the question is how the 6LBR (phone) obtains IP prefix(es). I was
curious whether a cellular operator would provide either
  1) an IPv6 prefix (which the phone could further use for prefix
distribution into the LoWPAN)
  2) an IPv6 address (in which case the phone needs some other mechanism to
obtain an IPv6 prefix - see below)

Quote from draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd:

   The 6LBRs are responsible for managing the prefix(es) assigned to the
   6LoWPAN, using manual configuration, DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
   [RFC3633], or other mechanisms. In an isolated LoWPAN a ULA
   [RFC4193] prefix SHOULD be generated by the 6LBR.

If more is known how this is going to work eg for the topology in Fig 5, we
could consider to write it in the I-D.

Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: minjun.xi@nokia.com [mailto:minjun.xi@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday 22 September 2011 15:53
To: Dijk, Esko; johanna.1.nieminen@nokia.com; cabo@tzi.org
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over
BT-LE draft)

Esko,
DHCPv6 for 6LoWPAN network.

In the current version of I-D, there's one chapter (3.2.1) describing
"IPv6 Address Configuration", which mentioned "Stateless autoconfiguration".
Stateless autoconfiguration is defined in RFC4862, which is different from
"stateful autoconfiguration" (aka DHCPv6).

Compared with 6LoWPAN over BT-LE, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd has defined the
mechanism to configure IPv6 addresses for 6LoWPAN over 802.15.4. In
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-17, there're several assumptions for 6lowpan-nd. It
says "All nodes in the network have an EUI-64 interface identifier in order
to do address auto-configuration and detect duplicate addresses."
Also, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd introduces the Address Registration mechanism
and the optional DAD mechanism. DHCPv6 is not optimized for low-power and
lossy networks including 802.15.4 and BT-LE.

I think it is necessary to make the "IPv6 address configuration" for 6LoWPAN
over BT-LE clear in the future revision.

Thank you!

--
Best Regards,
Minjun, Xi
Nokia Research Center





On 9/19/11 9:54 PM, "ext Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com> wrote:

>Dear BT-LE authors, all,
>
>I haven't done a detailed review but I have one technical 
>comment/question. The typical case in the I-D is a BT-LE mobile phone, 
>connected to the internet, acting as a 6LBR and distributing an IP 
>prefix to 6LNs. Is it the intention that an IP prefix for the 6LoWPAN 
>can be obtained by the phone via DHCPv6 ?  If so would an ISP support 
>this for a phone connected to their 3G network?
>
>Obtaining an IP prefix by the 6LBR seems necessary to enable routing 
>from a host on the internet to a 6LN.
>
>regards,
>Esko
>
>
>Esko Dijk
>
>Philips Corporate Technologies, Research High Tech Campus 34, 
>Eindhoven, The Netherlands esko.dijk@philips.com
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On 
>Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
>Sent: Friday 9 September 2011 14:43
>To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
>Subject: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over 
>BT-LE
>draft)
>
>6LoWPANners,
>
>we are now looking at the third WG version (-02) of this draft.
>
>Are we ready to do a working-group last-call on this?
>
>-- if you see something major that needs to be done before this is 
>ready, please speak up now.
>   (If you have technical comments, or maybe some editorial 
>suggestions, these are also useful at this point, although there also 
>will be time to comment in the actual WGLC.)
>
>-- conversely, if you have reviewed the document and like it, please do 
>speak up (and please do say what you have specifically looked at).
>
>Of course, we don't want to go into a WGLC with glaring omissions (I 
>gather Appendix A is not really a necessary part of this spec), and we 
>also don't want to go into WGLC if the working group hasn't been able 
>to review the document or, worse, if nobody actually cares.
>
>Please respond to this message by Sep 16.
>
>Gruesse, Carsten
>
>_______________________________________________
>6lowpan mailing list
>6lowpan@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>
>The information contained in this message may be confidential and 
>legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely 
>for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
>hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or 
>reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be 
>unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
>sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>_______________________________________________
>6lowpan mailing list
>6lowpan@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan


The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.