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

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

I think "archaic" is bit unfair. What's archaic is the IPv6 subnet model, which strongly resembles the DIX Ethernet specification of 1978. That was in fact a valid design point in 1994, but today, not so much.

I'm not saying the draft is 100% up to date, but what we really have to find here is a solution to the "layer 2" discovery problem that is independent of the various new technologies. And "layer 2" is in quotes because it doesn't really exist any more, so we need terminology refresh too, which I think section 4 of the draft is attempting.

Can we agree that the subnet model introduced by section 4 is the way forward? If not, we are back to square one.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 31-May-23 05:03, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:23 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> 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 <sarikaya2012@gmail.com <mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com>>
>     *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2023 5:39 PM
>     *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>
>     *Cc:* IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:17 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> 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 <sarikaya2012@gmail.com <mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com>> 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 <bob.hinden@gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote:____
> 
>                 Behcet,____
> 
>                 __ __
> 
>                     On May 25, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com <mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com>> wrote:____
> 
>                     __ __
> 
>                     Hi all, ____
> 
>                     __ __
> 
>                     __ __
> 
>                     On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:48 PM Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com <mailto:michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>> 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 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>> *On Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>                         *Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:52 PM
>                         *To:* IPv6 WG (ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>) <ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>>
>                         *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
>                         ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>                         Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>                         --------------------------------------------------------------------____
> 
>                     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>                     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>                     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>                     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>                     --------------------------------------------------------------------____
> 
>                 __ __
> 
>             --------------------------------------------------------------------
>             IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>             ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>             Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------