Re: [Iot-directorate] [E] Re: Question on IETF IOT-devices scope

["Chakrabarti, Samita" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,

Thanks for your analysis on IETF IoT related work so far. Agreed.
Industrial devices are indeed an interesting ones. Interestingly enough
they can use multiple different access technologies (cellular or  shared
wireless technologies) . It would be interesting to find out if they can
use existing IETF constrained or non-constrained protocols (  Pascal
mentioned about RAW and detnet) and communicate over multiple access
technologies.

Thanks,
-Samita

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:38 PM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Samita:
>
> To answer your question:
>
> a) Like others on this thread, i think we never limited IoT to
> "constrained" devices.
> We just did a lot more work for them than for other (T)hings (like cars
> and their
> networks. I have not followed SUIT, but i could imagine that SUIT and
> BRSKI work
> will reach far beyond constraint Io(T)hings already.
>
> b) I already commented on earlier version(s) of Ted drafts, that i wonder
> about the applicability of the work transcending the specific use-cases Ted
> has in mind into other (T)hings. I just have not seen good feedback from
> folks that could comment from more experience from other use cases, such as
> in industrial (T)hings.
>
> For example, from my limited understanding, there are a lot of networks
> in industrial use where only IPv4 is used because they like the idea of
> being able to achieve really very simple (T)hing software stack by using
> fixed addresses, such as 10.0.0.x for the components of some machinery
> connected by a simple ethernet and a "gateway" switch. These setups are
> then also why you find a lot of static NAT functionality in indistrial
> ethernet switches - to connect such stub networks to the next layer of
> networking.
>
> With ULA in IPv6 we do not even allow for this "generic" addressing model
> anymore because you are supposed to allocate a random ULA prefix, and NAT
> is looked upon with despise by many IPv6 purists, whereas IPv6/IPv6 NAT6
> did evolve though many use cases that evolved from the NAT mindset from
> that
> IPv4 history IMHO. I remember the heated debate about ading IPv6 NAT to
> OpenWRT several years back where purists said it shouldn't be done and
> i think it exists now in OpenWRT but of course the debate goes on.
>
> Yada yada: I feel that for broader use across various IoT use cases it
> would
> certainly help to better understand addressing desires in more IoT network
> types especially industrial. Don't be surprised if there is a lot more
> interest in better IPv4 support and all types of NAT as well as "generic"
> hard-coded addresses. And i am not making judgement calls
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:55:49PM -0400, Chakrabarti, Samita wrote:
> > Hello All:
> >
> > In pre-IETF IOT-DIRECTORATE meeting, Ted Lemon has pointed to two
> documents
> > regarding connecting the Thread Mesh networks to the traditional IP
> > Infrastructure:
> > 1) (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dlemon-2Dstub-2Dnetworks-2Dps_&d=DwIBAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=5VO3FbRsXyVfbb4laHvJRZD3JUjwaKuKLuLPezbwk3s&s=lJPDOR3qTbNYy6iNNVtgqc3aCXvA3RRo8I9tpwPpfgc&e=
> )  -
> > Problem Statement
> > 2)
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dlemon-2Dstub-2Dnetworks_&d=DwIBAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=5VO3FbRsXyVfbb4laHvJRZD3JUjwaKuKLuLPezbwk3s&s=rtYUJ0dekrVK3F_NKaSPl1Rgyn6HSsYQtmslFc7durE&e=
>         - A
> > possible solution
> >
> > IoT-Directorate co-chairs and the responsible ADs would like to discuss
> if
> > it makes sense to extend the IOT-Directorate charter towards less
> > constrained devices such as some of the home devices considered as
> 'things'.
> >
> > The charter of the directorate says : (
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_group_iotdir_about_&d=DwIBAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=5VO3FbRsXyVfbb4laHvJRZD3JUjwaKuKLuLPezbwk3s&s=_fPrQ_9s3HeUgcjnyu8MfBtCli6IrS4RVxsEV-RaWS4&e=
> )
> >
> > "The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to devices, that are often
> constrained
> > in communication and computation capabilities, now becoming more commonly
> > connected to the Internet, and various services that are built on top of
> > the capabilities these devices jointly provide. It is expected that this
> > development will usher in more machine-to-machine communication using the
> > Internet with no human user actively involved."
> >
> > Should IoT-Directorate members consider Thread Mesh stub networks as one
> of
> > topics under IOT-DIR scope of discussion or part of IoT work?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Samita
>
> > --
> > Iot-directorate mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_iot-2Ddirectorate&d=DwIBAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=5VO3FbRsXyVfbb4laHvJRZD3JUjwaKuKLuLPezbwk3s&s=8jeH3ZPxfcuFv-zEDNpiyoRm-lw4SWUJHM0000PL_zs&e=
>
>
> --
> ---
> [e-mail]
>