Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome

Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> Fri, 26 July 2013 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <d.sturek@att.net>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E3A21F9B12 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4cnSBaYQ8Spp for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm9-vm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm9-vm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FE321F9B0E for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.196.81.165] by nm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2013 17:26:30 -0000
Received: from [98.139.221.56] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2013 17:26:30 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 Jul 2013 17:26:30 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1374859590; bh=/QtaI59lGbY314eGgXst5h0br7lafPVZZ+fh1zONYS8=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type; b=rhSXFMm8Mi9GLWPPyLa/2O09MSVOMrEVGx3T+VEHCv4LdqsAwAKVN/kQDxqitedNna0faiw+RxejcgD8GGHBJaAW2tKEZLKsyS6byyciBmXJo+JJuXp2WT53IZoxIPn/dsyS+IjA8Bx/Y/ENAAsmm8BLuy1w9v1BzpX8ciXL2Wg=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 350524.13993.bm@smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: s84kIosVM1lA.JAfNc2odWdcjX8lt2aciSVC_XLbXVdxQx0 b3Wg9hVvmiLrzoa0sthANMhr5yeI.yFXYDZdPDrfWVSlvHRj0w5dMSJBcERY 991RrfWA_utLGT98Y59sXTbTds.uLuEtACCq3cypXcr2Y7Jp3XIFm.a4Lj6F KT0EN4RlgweQnYReb4qmPiVKI3yeEySlHeiI2l2SUQ.UqV.7I7HLnPljkljL jdaRnd1gsChCQIJmQHEnhnr5Oy2lAGw0Z5us2pKcY61y9UFToazR4dFul8hV 9y3xz6KucwnLhzL.XvAeXMMar3ysZT94m84RIYHC0NWDTsOHyonSPIdsJkra i.snupb7YJWZukuv0IAfM_E1K2cTzZujaD892SBmHU3NjgtOwgsOS.KYaE_2 AHQmheRqkl2R0fVIc2yd.05.f5J77d5u3OnMUklszdERZ3cZ.xRZAcvc7GRK nOiHrXNKBaewBmtuQmQ_Al7yXtpSClp9oeJqm4DrCZyA05AsXmpAbUHlGR2S x9YR1Q6eEaJSFwQNe
X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo-
X-Rocket-Received: from [10.1.1.129] (d.sturek@66.27.60.174 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2013 10:26:30 -0700 PDT
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:25:15 -0700
From: Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CE17FD82.226A5%d.sturek@att.net>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome
In-Reply-To: <CANK0pbYTMjS-u9tft52sGtijJT0YtLfQTTiOY2zF28LUcrQpbw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3457679189_257412"
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:26:37 -0000

Hi Emmanuel,

I think if route over protocols are to adhere to RFC 5889, much more work
needs to go into making ULAs useful.

For our project we used:    6LoWPAN (RFC 4944), 6LoWPAN-ND (RFC 6775), ROLL
RPL (RFC 650), mDNS (RFC 6762) with some extensions to use ULAs (among
others) and I can say that simply not using link locals with RFC 5889 would
not yield a robust IoT solution (at least this is my opinion having worked
on this for 4 years now)

Don



From:  Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date:  Friday, July 26, 2013 1:50 AM
To:  Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Cc:  "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome

Hi Michael,

actually, MANET protocols have been working for years to provide mesh-over
routing, without multi-link subnets.

To understand better the "link" properties you have to deal with, you could
take a look at this draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02

As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as we know
them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop environment.

This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which essentially bans the use
of subnet prefixes in this environment. And without subnet prefixes, what is
the purpose of an IP link? Not much...

Best,

Emmanuel




On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:
> 
> Ulrich, thank for starting a new thread on this topic as I asked.
> 
> I am looking forward to understanding how we can do mesh-over networking
> without creating multi-link subnets.
> 
> It might just be that we need to always auto-configure /128 addresses on the
> interfaces, and use /128 routes everywhere.
> That's what my code does in order to implement multi-link subnets.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca> >,
> Sandelman Software Works
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF
IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------