Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Behcet

The filename of the draft is misleading. The title and content have evolved. The title is now “Architecture and Framework for IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Access”. The chairs decided to keep the filename to avoid misleading the readers about the draft continuity. Bottom line is that the doc is not about how we do IPv6 in all sorts of wireless media, but how we do IPv6 over NBMA, with application on wireless.

You’ll note that the architecture therein is compatible with Wi-Fi BSS, Wi-Fi ESS, Wi-Fi mesh and BLE mesh. It is also compatible with various adhoc networking technologies.

But, to your point, the applicability statement focusses on Wi-Fi. This is because there’s no writing elsewhere about it, and Ethernet and by extension Wi-Fi appears to fall into 6MAN to discuss. For BLE, RFC 7668 already refers to RFC 6775. For BLE mesh, RFC 9159 already refers RFC 6775, RFC 8505, and RFC 8928. So we are already covered there. Note that I have no idea why you consider any of that as archaic; IMHO that’s actually the state of the art, and as Brian points out, the only archaic thing on the table is insisting on using SLAAC in line cards and media that departed so much from what that lead to the design of RFC 4862 3 decades ago, and really in the previous millennium.

Finally LPWAN as defined at the IETF is too constrained to have any ND at all. So we expect that the address mappings are configured as part of the SCHC context. There’s nothing this architecture and framework can do to help there, it’s really a different scope and world.

So what’s your suggestion? I could extend the applicability with content from the 2 paragraphs above. Would that make the document better?

All the best,

Pascal


From: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:04 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless



On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:23 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Can you please start a thread on that? I need to understand if you wish more IoT as problem statement, as architecture, or as applicability, since the draft has the 3 aspects. And more specific items than the below.


I am sure you know LPWAN, my suggestion is to explain how IPv6 works in LPWAN. You talk about what 6LowPAN did, which is fine but it is long gone.

Also Bluetooth Mesh needs to be mentioned. Bluetooth Mesh can span the whole building not just one floor, so IPv6 operation probably deserves a section?

There is also FIDO or industrial IoT.

So these three issues would make your draft more contemporary instead of a bit archaic.

 My two cents.

Behcet
In the meantime I’ll publish what I have done since 0 as a base. This includes the acronym move, and a thin P2MP section that Eduard asked for.

Cheers,
Pascal

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 5:39 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless



On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:17 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I’m not ignoring it Behcet. In fact I made that change for the acronyms.

Wait a minute, it is not only that.
I also asked more IoT content.
I think it would help to cover each major IoT technology as, for example, we did in our T2TRG draft separately and clearly.

Behcet

Regards,

Pascal

Le 26 mai 2023 à 17:09, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :

Hi Bob,

I made a review already, Pascal wants to ignore it, it is fine with me.

Behcet

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:36 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Behcet,

On May 25, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi all,


On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:48 PM Michael McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Looks good Pascal. Agree its ready to progress.

[MCAST PROBLEMS] can be now be replaced with RFC 9119.


And you may want to consider moving the acronyms up from page 13 to page 3.

I had already suggested this long time back.

Having said that I am surprised Pascal all of a sudden is asking WGLC.

I read what he wrote as asking for reviews now in order to get to a w.g. last call later.

Reviews would be good.

Bob



I said give me a break to myself 😀.

Behcet

Question on your Bonjour reference. Bonjour uses mDNS. Is that what you are referring to with “Excessive use of broadcast by protocols such as ND-Classic and Bonjour led network administrators to install multicast rate limiting to protect the network.”? We didn’t get into Bonjour in 9119 but we did get into mDNS a bit, ie, when many devices are using it. Just want to make sure we are saying that same thing.

Thanks,
mike

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:52 PM
To: IPv6 WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

Dear WG:

We adopted that draft to publish it as informational; it is at the same time a state of the art, a problem statement, and an applicability statement.

The issues are clear and present, see also draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations. We face customer situations where clients are not properly served because ND snooping fails to locate them all with a painful regularity. This impacts all sorts of situations, from wireless to fabrics / EVPN.

Note that This is indeed very related to the SLAAC operation and IPv4 is mostly immune. Meaning that the IPv6 experience is of more broadcasts and less reliability.

In order to progress in solving the issues raised, it makes sense to publish soon and move on. The draft has been progressing as an individual submission for a long time and it is mostly complete, IMHO. So my intent is to ask for WGLC sooner than later. To get there, reviews would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance : )

Pascal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------