RE: Interested in wireless ?

Pascal, as a brief response getting a "Care-of" address in a visited network with
the possibility of causing a multi-link subnet  is something OMNI seeks to avoid.
OMNI is about "Bring-your-own-addresses", and OMNI does have a mesh
networking story - see Section 12.1.

Thanks - Fred

> A very broad claim, and I do not see that at all from reading the spec, Fred.
> 
> I read a virtual interface for global mobility. I read something similar to VxLANs, where the AR would play the role of xTR and the
> capability to have multiple tunnels (as RFC 6089 does) and one end point mobile (LISP can do that too). I'm unclear if you encapsulate
> the L2 packets like we typically do with VxLANs, or if there may be a local CareOf Address, seems the former but I did not get it all. I
> see the same challenges of getting this deployed as for MIP, NEMO, LISP, etc..., in particular with the reliance of a service in the visited
> network. Having worked on those, I can understand the risk and the frustration.
> 
> But do you really think that all wireless nodes need this / will behave like that?
> Don't you think that some mobiles just want an address in the visited network and connect to the Internet?
> E.g., tell me (in a different thread, offline, whatever) what use a wireless mesh network will have of OMNI, and how that could
> replace WiND and RPL in deployed smartgrid networks?
> 
> I do not believe the 2 drafts are competition. ...ipv6-over-wireless presents the problems doing IPv6 over a physical wireless link,
> OMNI deals with overlays but does not address the physical access challenges. ...ipv6-over-wireless is informational, OMNI aims at
> defining a new standard. They actually could work very well together if/when OMNI terminates the tunnels at L3 with a CoA.
> 
> Bottom line: I understand that you want to advertise OMNI, I do not understand why you create confusion in this thread, starting with
> my own.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Sent: mardi 7 juillet 2020 16:03
> > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; 6man Chairs <6man-
> > chairs@ietf.org>
> > Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: Interested in wireless ?
> >
> > Pascal, when using the OMNI interface for wireless there is no need for
> > changes to ND and no need for multilink subnets:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-omni-interface/
> >
> > There is an adoption call in the queue for OMNI.
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> >
> > > Dear chairs;
> > >
> > > We have had a long thread on the adoption of
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless.
> > > I have seen only supporting comments, and even a path for a proper RFC type
> > indicated by Brian below.
> > > But I have not seen the action on your part.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to make the call for adoption now so we could discuss the
> > result at one of the IETF virtual meetings.
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Pascal
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 01:21
> > > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> > > > Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: Interested in wireless ?
> > > >
> > > > Pascal,
> > > >
> > > > There is a category of standards track documents foreseen in RFC2026
> > > > called "applicability statements", described at
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2
> > > >
> > > > I think that is perhaps where your draft could fit. A little bit
> > > > stronger than Informational and little bit different than Best *Current*
> > Practice.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >    Brian
> > > >
> > > > On 01-Jun-20 04:40, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > > > > Hello Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > We may have to split the doc but for the most part I agree it is
> > > > > an
> > > > informational.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now I suggest to just change the intended status accordingly
> > > > > and aim at
> > > > BCP or something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let’s discuss in parallel the coexistence and if there’s a need
> > > > > for an std track
> > > > somewhere. There’s at least the use of a 6LBR for address looking up
> > > > in unicast.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take care,
> > > > > Pascal
> > > > >
> > > > >> Le 30 mai 2020 à 22:47, Brian E Carpenter
> > > > >> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> > > > a écrit :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I believe that this is an important topic that 6MAN should take
> > > > >> up. The draft
> > > > is a good basis.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At the moment I find the draft a bit confusing in one way. It's
> > > > >> aimed at
> > > > standards track, but it mainly doesn't read like a standard. There's
> > > > a lot of discussion but not much specification. If I was a coder, I
> > > > wouldn't really know where to start. For example, the end of the
> > Introduction says:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "This document discusses the applicability of IPv6 ND over
> > > > >> wireless links, as compared with routing-based alternatives such
> > > > >> as prefix-per node and multi-link subnets (MLSN), and with
> > > > >> Wireless ND (WiND), that is similar to the Wi-Fi association and
> > > > >> reduces the need for Network-Layer multicast."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If it's a standard, IMHO it shouldn't do that. It should specify
> > > > >> what WiND is,
> > > > with normative references as needed. Section 5 is the important
> > > > part. It's fine to have a descriptive section about why WiND is
> > > > needed, but that is almost better as an appendix. The main text
> > > > should be essentially the instructions for a kernel programmer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards
> > > > >>   Brian Carpenter
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 30-May-20 23:46, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > > > >>> 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-wireles
> > > > >>> s-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
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------