Re: [Iotops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Automatically connecting to stub networks...

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 07:22 Templin (US), Fred L, <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
wrote:

> >I’m sorry, Fred, but I’m just not seeing the point of this. Why not just
> do DHCPv6 PD?
>
>
>
> Ted, there is a need to reduce the number of messages especially on low end
>
> wireless links like those used for aviation. So, if a terse DHCPv6 PD
> exchange
>
>
>
I would wonder if IPv6 is fundamentally the wrong tool for the job if you
care about going from 6 packets to 2.

Packets are cheap and are always getting cheaper.

By doing a lot of customising, you aren't really making things cheaper,
you're just shifting the cost you're trying to avoid.

Those 4 DHCPv6 PD packets you're saving could be paid for by the costs
incurred of reinventing, implementing, deploying and then training people
about the functional equivalents.

What bandwidth are these links?

>
>

>
>
> can be piggybacked on-board the RS/RA exchange that already needs to be
>
> there in any case then there is a tangible savings on messages over the
> air.
>
> This is good for more than just aviation, too, and applicable for mobile
> use
>
> cases such as intelligent transportation systems and urban air mobility;
> maybe
>
> even for pedestrians too.
>
>
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2020 12:11 PM
> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> *Cc:* STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com>; Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>; 6MAN <
> 6man@ietf.org>; iotops@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Iotops] Automatically connecting to stub
> networks...
>
>
>
> This message was sent from outside of Boeing. Please do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content
> is safe.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2020, at 2:38 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <
> Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> It now places a fully-formed DHCPv6 message inside of an OMNI option in
>
> RS/RA messages so the stub network node can do DHCPv6-PD at the same
>
> time it does RS/RA (this is something I have talked about before). However,
>
> right now it only allows for a small-message DHCPv6 exchange from within
>
> each RS/RA, which should provide ample space for most stub network
>
> DHCPv6-PD users. Does it look like enough, or should we support bigger?
>
>
>
> I’m sorry, Fred, but I’m just not seeing the point of this. Why not just
> do DHCPv6 PD?
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>