IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-05.txt

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121FB1A8AB1; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 KTwFL_13os5n; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A12E1A8AE8; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2482; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414510882; x=1415720482; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LQCSHOHdWVqt800FDE+dASg/AUXXNtyHrxbFPMxpzgw=; b=MJn/zZ+NK/SL8BCA8rHfX4TiardbQQm7f46pscj1NUL025rRL39KbaUY WZ3s6oK3R6HD1mVxwnXWbGa9VYAEWrQeeKnbOyOjOOMsCoE1sn4bnVX6q 2v1mTUYdw88HO3/e3ghNBTrI4AvnFLaRWytHPnmdSUVrcxijDbAe5sXqh k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFACi4T1StJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABcgw6BLATWBwKBHBYBAQEBAX2EAgEBAQR3AgwEAgEIEQQBAQsdBzIUCQgCBAENBQiIOcl/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF5A7HTEHBoMngR4BBIsqhmGNDoNJihmHI4I0gURsgUiBAwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,803,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="91070428"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2014 15:41:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9SFfLLP021220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:41:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.207]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:41:21 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "Brett, Patricia (PA62)" <patricia.brett@honeywell.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP8gMrAV2gakhP90atgtUiqheORZxEIl2wgABiY/CAAFc7AIAARnWAgABA9wD//78Pq4AAmrQA///Z2wA=
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:41:20 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:41:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A25806@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <20141027162913.19095.85860.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A22B96@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <861C280A4EB34046A0D9A4324E4E82240148D6B8@de08ex3001.global.ds.honeywell.com> <097025FF-6076-45F0-8A2E-0FDA08335CB0@tzi.org> <861C280A4EB34046A0D9A4324E4E82240148D7EB@de08ex3001.global.ds.honeywell.com>, <12467F5C-9C5E-40F0-8D6C-0CEB8978DCC3@tzi.org> <8B945CD1-B841-4753-9CCE-BFC6FCEFE7E7@cisco.com> <861C280A4EB34046A0D9A4324E4E822401490B29@de08ex3001.global.ds.honeywell.com>
In-Reply-To: <861C280A4EB34046A0D9A4324E4E822401490B29@de08ex3001.global.ds.honeywell.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/aBhj22hV8MyIJzobse6DWoDk5MY
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-update-reqs-05.txt
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:41:26 -0000

Hello Pat:

Yes, 802.15.10 is working on defining a mesh under L2-Routing technology.
For all I know the scope of the work does not include the upper layer operations, including L3 and neighbor discovery.
IOW, I do not see that this work, if successful, would be pushing anything new onto IETF.

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett, Patricia (PA62) [mailto:patricia.brett@honeywell.com]
> Sent: mardi 28 octobre 2014 13:00
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Carsten Bormann
> Cc: 6lo@ietf.org; 6tisch@ietf.org; Brett, Patricia (PA62)
> Subject: RE: [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-
> update-reqs-05.txt
> 
> Hi Pascal,
> I understood from Pat Kinney that 802 is considering taking up some work
> w.r.t. mesh under.
> Regards,
> Pat
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:46 AM
> To: Carsten Bormann
> Cc: Brett, Patricia (PA62); 6lo@ietf.org; 6tisch@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6tisch] New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rfc6775-
> update-reqs-05.txt
> 
> Same here, Pat. There is no anti-mesh-under intention. From the L3
> perspective the mesh under looks like one hop and we must cover that case,
> certainly!
> 
> We already have requirements that apply to one L3 hop like the capability to
> proxy on the backbone, but nothing that is specific to a multi L2 hops mesh
> under.
> 
> If you are aware of requirements that we missed please let us know... Now is
> the time !
> 
> Pascal
> 
> Le 28 oct. 2014 à 07:38, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> a écrit :
> 
> >> Mesh under been in use and working for years in an IEC wireless standard
> for a low power network.
> >> As such it should be an option.
> >
> > Certainly.  RFC 6775 was designed to be applicable to both mesh-under
> and route-over routing.
> >
> > E.g., it starts out saying:
> >
> >> 1.3.  Goals and Assumptions
> >>
> >>   The document has the following main goals and assumptions.
> >>
> >>   Goals:
> >>
> >>   o  Optimize Neighbor Discovery with a mechanism that is minimal yet
> >>      sufficient for the operation in both mesh-under and route-over
> >>      configurations.
> >> [.]
> >
> >
> > Now, if there is something amiss about the mesh-under support in RFC
> 6775, that would be good to know.
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email