IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 D5C323A095A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, PLING_QUERY=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 K-SiCH7GdMZD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F126D3A0952 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 06:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1jg7Ce-0000ITC; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:43:40 +0200
Message-Id: <m1jg7Ce-0000ITC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: One size fits all !?! (was: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com> <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org> <1C1F0496-33A8-4646-B356-369EA9ABAD33@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com> <7AC15DBA-17DD-4CF7-95C1-0F1C6775BF30@fugue.com> <20200529171234.GY62020@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <m1jfnYY-0000IJC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <370ce45962cf4890b15851663f55291d@boeing.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:41:20 +0000 ." <370ce45962cf4890b15851663f55291d@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:43:40 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_dTgAifgm_uUduDhT03SyoGsoVY>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:43:48 -0000

> Philip, good message but
> I do see an element of truth in what the original poster was trying
> to communicate. In aviation, we often deal with wireless links with
> bandwidth less than 1Mbps - sometimes even *much* less. Asking
> those links to carry at least two IPv6 addresses per packet is a
> considerable commitment of resources, but that is our current plan.
> Should we be open to considering alternatives?

I think one thing to do would be the creation of a paper design for a
network protocol specific to this application. That can then be use to
evaluate to cost of using IPv6. Or, in the case of compression and
other tricks, how close you can get to 'optimal' performance.

The big question is, what do you gain from using IPv6? Is it host software
(socket interface, TCP, UDP, DNS, etc)? Is it network management?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email