IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Request for 6man review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-22

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 16 June 2018 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 6FA58130E43 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 aljJC8bTmvwr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 06:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D5BB130DF7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 06:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170C820090 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 09:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 186F38B2; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 09:02:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DFE4F8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jun 2018 09:02:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Request for 6man review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-22
In-Reply-To: <8fa4d72a-9d1c-33ca-8dfa-4187b5e92781@gmail.com>
References: <D12416CA-164C-4ECD-A984-966FF56189A2@kaloom.com> <CAKD1Yr2bQB3rw95kjw0PUhDFb2j7Kfouvv4Y+eqvsiwJaBOOhA@mail.gmail.com> <d02289f7-3b57-5914-6e40-cc253a1bbe51@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3NUTimwUELcAnzk74yE9WpdiAEjjy5rKVSnyLkbJ+0QQ@mail.gmail.com> <98575440-e83e-a56f-51ee-435ef7386bb9@gmail.com> <948f031d-a813-5722-bc1f-63c992ff87ef@gmail.com> <6c584f67-ecea-72de-fafa-badaac64b93d@gmail.com> <a158dc96-0ef9-1425-4798-c96e21db7902@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2tSEy926ipmWGGZbNqN6RJtbHGjnE797QCiQDKozzhZw@mail.gmail.com> <d0830d0b-5d7f-d429-be3d-6d0a642233c5@gmail.com> <CD5740BD-C291-4D7D-A8AD-93E67B711A56@tony.li> <8fa4d72a-9d1c-33ca-8dfa-4187b5e92781@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 09:02:36 -0400
Message-ID: <28684.1529154156@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rHNpuX6X6rQJdqSuf_ntxENAeZM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 13:05:38 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> On Jun 15, 2018, at 5:12 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> But, we do not know whether a regular android smartphone can work in OCB mode.
    >>>
    >>> That is a key point of ND over OCB.
    >>
    >>
    >> Why are we blocking progress due to one implementation?

    > Well, the fact that the explanation of how ND and SLAAC actually work
    > on OCB is incomplete is really what's blocking progress. Alexandre
    > has said that ND has been observed to work (he didn't mention SLAAC,
    > but I guess it must have worked too). But I still can't reconcile that
    > with the explanation that OCB nodes missing packets is a normal, rather
    > than exceptional, situation. How does ND work when there's a radio-frequency
    > barrier between two nodes?

It sounds like they need to profile RFC6775 or
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-rfc6775-update/

They solve ND when broadcast is not complete.
However, they depend upon having a deice to keep track of things.
That it turn is facilitated (but not required) by having a routing protocol
that creates an DAG and creates an up direction which makes it obvious
where the DAR/DAC packets go to/come-from.

This might be a problem in a regularly changing convoy, but shouldn't be a
problem within a vehicle.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email