RE: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt

"Templin (US), Fred L" <> Tue, 02 June 2020 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7CB3A08C5 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XgZw--5QyRyQ for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D4C13A03F6 for <>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 052F9ne2010004; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:09:52 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1591110593; bh=PMDFVJPsAztxqgNTy71iwJoNGgbdqjnA5NZoqN/Wrp8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UnMs0Cn6mhsUDvRUF9Ol909C4Y+WKhf8MSi9CaROOz7PUJWOyGGpKDWBdlKzWjwwU LP9GuMBlFXIA+zLjk1sLygJMG56hQWS8qgzvLGGkgm5NMW5imoyp6aS0kI4F/+u8mm kLNA4+lcmD51MwjuoI7BKtfvFMp8vVDYYww+j2sgKsDTWv5uKyUyTUe1MUUwkgyl/U ZFrEUpM9BsNwndBUdaoiGaChU8LDwbiwNrBESy8HD9QChEYGNJhhpwwkM14iqM7xlH gBWDY4mr67W7ORdEwghGlFv/O1u6pqORClSmPJNk9WnKXxm11TKZdU1ctI1YGSiI8A 1TSK27QwpxYIw==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 052F9aOW008825 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:09:36 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:09:34 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:09:34 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>, Gyan Mishra <>, "" <>
CC: 6man WG <>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWOGuysSezcXhv5kux7r6/xhF6u6jEaoRQgAD8tICAAAQikA==
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:09:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 9F99491B3950D095D4E45A677852C7FB07215E59B43D798176A9644E637E66032000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_751ff12a59914c98a4b8d8d318825d7cboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:09:58 -0000

Pascal, while it is true that OMNI and AERO do conform to overlay principles, on
the access network proper the OMNI interface uses unencapsulated IPv6 ND
messages in a manner that achieves what your draft is asking except in a
different way. Your draft seems to be asking for a “get a care-of address from
infrastructure” approach, whereas OMNI is “bring your own address”.

BTW, the correct URLs were given in an earlier message but here they are again:

Note that the current OMNI draft includes “6man” in the name, and that RFC6706
is to be obsoleted by the (bis) named above.

Thanks - Fred

From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) []
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2020 12:42 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <>om>; Gyan Mishra <>om>;
Cc: 6man WG <>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt

Hello Fred

I do not see why we’d need to wait for AERO to be RFC to adopt this draft.

Still, applying overlays on wireless is certainly useful, there’s AERO, and there’s also RAW. So I agree with you that discussing only MIP / NEMO is not sufficient. But hey, this is not WG LC, just adoption.

I’d be happy to extend the scope to accommodate a section on AERO if that is what you have in mind and what the WG wants. As I’d be inclined to discuss more on RAW. But I’d need your help for that text, and we’d have to present those things as more advanced / WIP activities.

Keep safe,


From: Templin (US), Fred L <<>>
Sent: mardi 2 juin 2020 01:45
To: Gyan Mishra <<>>;<>
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <<>>; 6man WG <<>>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt

I don’t think it is time for this yet. The document calls for multilink subnets,
care-of addresses and Mobile IP whereas AERO and OMNI do not. There
is a point to be made that Pascal’s doc considers multihop primarily whereas
AERO/OMNI consider multiple links primarily. But, I think it would be a pretty
simple extension to get AERO/OMNI to do multihop using your favorite
choice of MANET or other technology.

Thanks - Fred

From: ipv6 [] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2020 4:24 PM
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <<>>; 6man WG <<>>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt


I agree that this is an important topic that 6MAN should take up.

As for draft name I agree with standards track and the name shown in the subject heading
draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06 is good.

You maybe familiar with an inherent issue that exist with multicast over WiFi where the multicast packets are transmitted at the lowest connection speed of all hosts associated to an SSID and thus the connection bandwidth ends up being low.  Dual band 5G with 802.11ac does help as devices not supporting AC cannot connect and have to connect to the single band SSID.  However older devices on single band still are subject to the significant step down to the lowest speed..

Since IPV6 uses multicast for ND, all ND packets automatically get throttled and stepped down to the lowest bandwidth of all connected devices.  This step down issue exists for IPv4 multicast packets, however I have not tried with IPv6 but i am guessing the issue does exist.

There are WIFI vendor implementation that exist to circumvent the step down issue by taking incoming multicast steam and unicast out to all WiFi clients.  Drawback is bandwidth consumption with unicast over shared WIFI channel.

Kind Regards


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <<>> wrote:

Hi Pascal,

I suggest changing the draft name from draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless
to draft-thubert-6man-ipv6nd-over-wireless


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 11:52 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <<>> wrote:
Dear all

I applied the changes proposed by Carsten and held the change to informational status for now, per the latest with Brian.
Many thanks to both of you!


-----Original Message-----
From:<> <<>>
Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 18:47
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <<>>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:           draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless
Revision:       06
Title:          IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks
Document date:  2020-06-01
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          23

   This document describes how the original IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and
   Wireless ND (WiND) can be applied on various abstractions of wireless

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at<>.

The IETF Secretariat

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<>
Administrative Requests:
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<>
Administrative Requests: