Re: [IPv6] WG adoption for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/ ?

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Oups, thanks Alex, I forwarded the wrong thread, sorry. Retrying on the other thread.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: jeudi 12 janvier 2023 12:29
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [IPv6] WG adoption for
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless/
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> Le 11/01/2023 à 09:53, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> > Gentle reminder:
> >
> > Please let us know if the addition of the new bit in the RPL option
> causes any issue on the 6MAN side (we expect not).
> 
> A new bit in RPL option?
> 
> It thought this is about IPv6 over WiFi.  If it is about IPv6 over WiFi
> then I support it.
> 
> It would be a classical IPv6-over-foo work.  It would take into account
> the most recent 802.11 specs that are used in 'WiFi' like WiFi6, 7 and
> later.
> 
> It would relate to draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis-02 "Transmission of IPv6
> Packets over Ethernet Networks"
> 
> and maybe to other drafts such as:
> 
> draft-delcarpio-6lo-wlanah-01 "IPv6 over 802.11ah" ('ah' is 802.11 at
> lower freqs)
> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> > All the best to you all;
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >> Sent: jeudi 5 janvier 2023 14:39
> >> To: IPv6 WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: WG adoption for
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6man-
> >> ipv6-over-wireless/ ?
> >>
> >> Dear chairs and all:
> >>
> >> At the last IETF meeting in London I presented
> >> draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over- wireless which describes how IPv6 can
> >> be deployed over wireless networks, and suggests that the L3 models
> >> of Links and Subnets can be decoupled from L2 connectivity, e.g.,
> >> when the lower layer does not provide transitive connectivity, which
> is the case of most wireless networks.
> >>
> >> In MANET and 6lo networks, it is usual that the L3 link abstraction
> >> is based on P2P even when L2 may reach more than one node. The subnet
> >> can still be a /64, though the membership becomes an administrative
> >> decision as opposed to mapping a broadcast domain as is typically
> >> done with wires. And routing inside the subnet replaces the need for
> >> traditional IPv6 ND which 1) is not designed for NBMA and 2) is
> >> inefficient in terms of power, spectrum, and reliability (e.g., for
> DAD).
> >>
> >> The doc was written to explain to a larger audience why those choices
> >> were made; it is now complete and I got positive feedback, including
> >> from Brian at v6ops before the break, that it should be published;
> >> would the chairs now consider calling for adoption now - or else why
> not ?
> >>
> >> All the best;
> >>
> >> Pascal
> >>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------