IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Interested in wireless ?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 01 June 2020 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDAE3A14D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 v81cYuvDfy9y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44543A1242 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 051JIXgD006788 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:18:33 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DD3D9206596 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:18:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A1E200F6A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:18:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.240.31] ([10.11.240.31]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 051JIXVL001834 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:18:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Interested in wireless ?
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <A26FA9F8-72B8-4728-B978-6DDD271EC64D@cisco.com> <c0b383ce-9a86-dbe1-30a3-f96e7434c2a6@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ea3dd120-bdad-3ca3-2983-9605324f6e8e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 21:18:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c0b383ce-9a86-dbe1-30a3-f96e7434c2a6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QbX9qbQkiccUrCaMv4C2bQkI9Cw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 19:18:39 -0000

draft says:
>    To protect their bandwidth, some
>    networks throttle ND-related broadcasts, which reduces the capability
>    for the ND protocol to operate as expected.

I suspect you mean ND-related multicasts, and not ND-related broadcasts.

Also, I guess that need to protect (maintain availability) bandwidth is 
different when more and more bandwidth is offered by a PHY/MAC in a 
terahertz range.  Maybe these networks will stop throttling(?)

Alex

Le 01/06/2020 à 21:12, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> draft says:
>>    The routers send RAs with a SLLAO at a regular period.  The period
>>    can be indicated in the RA-Interval Option [RFC6275].  If available,
>>    the message can be transported in a compressed form in a beacon,
>>    e.g., in OCB Basic Safety Messages (BSM) that are nominally sent
>>    every 100ms.
> 
> I suggest to give CAM as an example as well, not just BSM.
> 
> It might be that on some continent CAM is more important than BSM.
> 
> It might be, that in an ideal world where all use Internet, there is 
> just one CAMBSM message, and maybe we get to that if we put it on IP.
> 
> But until then, citing just BSM is not good enough.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> Le 30/05/2020 à 13:46, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
>> Dear all
>>
>> Since there’s so much energy on the list these days, could we consider 
>> the adoption of
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-05
>> ?
>>
>> I got only positive feedback, there’s no politics, there no label, 
>> it’s all about IPv6 models for wireless. This may appear useful in a 
>> world where the vast majority of devices are connected that way.
>>
>> Keep safe,
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email