IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Thu, 02 April 2015 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD3A1A016C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 BiFFyVNokudp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17E911A0266 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obvd1 with SMTP id d1so142473123obv.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nestlabs.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TX3hCV7i077wZKmQ+4Nwp+VXdF2aPb374IS9hBLZSGg=; b=oB1/OTY9vHWtqm8P+/gRCADzvZjzEbDbc79/35j9K8DQoC/5Ivf2r84Hw0OdWPhX2N 1HUBRRwT5gFr1X7t9ouoeBKiKNK39LrOX3ymel53l1c9cM3PjdhsABSzmP8IhHN0PEXz p279RMdVRHIa80PGUb8FsY23NR7IY9nbdXQ3g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TX3hCV7i077wZKmQ+4Nwp+VXdF2aPb374IS9hBLZSGg=; b=GE5uAB+d9Su5POWt3V3rUMrR8QJI4r2e9EsL4/uJeDTuVuQCNt/r9LEWFA4pPuURD7 bSWofPeCY3G//Bc5yIQGAQQ981smI1o+/3CIOQ7rJghaK0PASevtKM+c+bj89PllLcRW zHFLSJ3A9fvEACF6GWl6+ou8Y4uO0MyTpBijWYCd9UNrSe36i7P3W+5dMKJN92YJlgZr ijq48yYema9p31XTBXr+/p8bHvIsfdWi/hQDtm163cZeQVnvtDkv3+nJriiOAE1ZP2OZ 5tySkjvMRu7Mho8yB21bPO7Xdwr7s1SCtueQo8GsibdSn3lrC459Y/wC1mmTnusTU+0O 568A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHcrNrtgJ5yxL70TFpepCvh41cD86bNxELEyDqZJNm09yvKFocKwGWkRpbm7np7BknMzYM
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.179.227 with SMTP id dj3mr48258382oec.29.1427999487501; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.177.229 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <551D81EE.2030403@gmail.com>
References: <63C03012-C7DD-497E-A1EF-019711E95FD0@cisco.com> <551BFBA9.5070103@gmail.com> <CADhXe5395L-HC-bQ7JzgVijLwBaovz7xJ27Rp7LrbHbOp98D6A@mail.gmail.com> <551CE518.7040202@gmail.com> <551D81EE.2030403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:31:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhXe53Ev409HoACDNvdxWkSEnkGZXOrb-SQo8cMYJy_KoMx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bd6b21a3140c50512c20a8d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WWQIS3yJFmCL2iPpQHJJOQnvy-U>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:31:32 -0000

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <
alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> But, in general, contiki does have this ability to only include IPv6, and
> no IPv4 stack.
>

ConTiki isn't the only 6LoWPAN platform to consider. You could ask members
of Thread Group <http://www.threadgroup.org/> if any of their commercial
products in development now are doing this. (You could ask me, but I
couldn't possibly comment.)


> There are other questions there, though.
> [...]
> You can't imagine sending a 6lowpan device a pure RA (it must be an
> RPL ICMP message).
>

According to the most recently published technical presentations, Thread
networks do not use RPL or RFC 6775. The specification for their border
routers is not yet published.


> You can't connect a 6lowpan-enabled-Router somewhere at an edge of
> the Internet where prefixes are already /64, because 6lowpan needs /64 as
> well.
>

That's right. It's one of the reasons I've been so active in the HOMENET
working group.


> I may be wrong in some of these aspects, but for these doubts I still dont
> think 6lowpan is IPv6, and I dont think 6lowpan devices are on the IPv6
> Internet.
>

I think you're absolutely wrong to doubt that 6LoWPAN devices can be fully
compliant IPv6 nodes reachable via the public Internet.


> Or is there an address of an IPv6-only 6lowpan device I could ping6?
>

I'm fairly certain they must exist in public somewhere. Just not anywhere
known to me. Today.


-- 
james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email