Re: [IPv6] WG adoption for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/ ?

Le 11/01/2023 à 09:53, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> Gentle reminder:
> 
> Please let us know if the addition of the new bit in the RPL option causes any issue on the 6MAN side (we expect not).

A new bit in RPL option?

It thought this is about IPv6 over WiFi.  If it is about IPv6 over WiFi 
then I support it.

It would be a classical IPv6-over-foo work.  It would take into account 
the most recent 802.11 specs that are used in 'WiFi' like WiFi6, 7 and 
later.

It would relate to draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis-02 "Transmission of IPv6 
Packets over Ethernet Networks"

and maybe to other drafts such as:

draft-delcarpio-6lo-wlanah-01 "IPv6 over 802.11ah" ('ah' is 802.11 at 
lower freqs)

Alex

> 
> All the best to you all;
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> Sent: jeudi 5 janvier 2023 14:39
>> To: IPv6 WG (ipv6@ietf.org) <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> Subject: WG adoption for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-
>> ipv6-over-wireless/ ?
>>
>> Dear chairs and all:
>>
>> At the last IETF meeting in London I presented draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-
>> wireless which describes how IPv6 can be deployed over wireless networks, and
>> suggests that the L3 models of Links and Subnets can be decoupled from L2
>> connectivity, e.g., when the lower layer does not provide transitive
>> connectivity, which is the case of most wireless networks.
>>
>> In MANET and 6lo networks, it is usual that the L3 link abstraction is based
>> on P2P even when L2 may reach more than one node. The subnet can still be a
>> /64, though the membership becomes an administrative decision as opposed to
>> mapping a broadcast domain as is typically done with wires. And routing
>> inside the subnet replaces the need for traditional IPv6 ND which 1) is not
>> designed for NBMA and 2) is inefficient in terms of power, spectrum, and
>> reliability (e.g., for DAD).
>>
>> The doc was written to explain to a larger audience why those choices were
>> made; it is now complete and I got positive feedback, including from Brian at
>> v6ops before the break, that it should be published; would the chairs now
>> consider calling for adoption now - or else why not ?
>>
>> All the best;
>>
>> Pascal
>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------