From geoff.ietf@mulligan.com Sun Nov 3 22:03:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A9221E8128 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:03:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 1I++LxQ0D8Us for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.coslabs.com (mail.coslabs.com [199.233.92.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE43521E8137 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 22:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [31.133.136.162] (dhcp-88a2.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.136.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.coslabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 248BA5F74F for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:03:37 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <527738B8.1030403@mulligan.com> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:03:36 -0700 From: Geoff Mulligan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lo@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040500010805000108020306" Subject: [6lo] SmartAmerica Challenge meeting X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:03:46 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040500010805000108020306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, We've arranged to be able to use the IAB conference room for our meeting. Again we are going to be meeting to talk about the PIF CPS Smart America Challenge project (www.nist.gov/el/smartamerica.cfm) and how you might be able to participate. Place: IAB Conference Room Date: Monday November 4 Time: 7:30pm to 9pm US/Pacific time *Geoff Mulligan | Presidential Innovation Fellow | Cyber Physical System | 301.975.6283 * --------------040500010805000108020306 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks,
  We've arranged to be able to use the IAB conference room for our meeting.

Again we are going to be meeting to talk about the PIF CPS Smart America Challenge project (www.nist.gov/el/smartamerica.cfm) and how you might be able to participate.

Place: IAB Conference Room
Date: Monday November 4
Time: 7:30pm to 9pm US/Pacific time
 
Geoff Mulligan | Presidential Innovation Fellow | Cyber Physical System | 301.975.6283

--------------040500010805000108020306-- From pthubert@cisco.com Mon Nov 4 07:50:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CEA11E8282; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:50:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 bLgIQjkWQWmW; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:50:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B1E321E8186; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:49:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2541; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383580180; x=1384789780; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rqKMX8bSBAyFgSXOvMMGZza0JpX8mhuOy9ZBtp4um8g=; b=cb5oAmh8/CdmO6/Tez/YmHfuYPWMqtxDO78QitT0eMQ8b4x0jUlFOiLE IHza7Gj2LvcHe5yxiJ2vVC7JazOYfitJLhnkaPhILsbhlWKNzLUsXQIsd djiX6ISMaQnkTnJ26sWm4Cn94xKJpb3siviWOksERQaMJtKZ60gbhKw8w 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAAPBd1KtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC789gSgWdIIlAQEBAwE6PwUHBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHMhQJCAIEAQ0FCIdzBr5TjgmBHjEHBoMagQ4DqhODJoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,633,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="280220351" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2013 15:49:39 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4FndJr013633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:49:39 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:49:39 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Erik Nordmark , Mark ZZZ Smith , Samita Chakrabarti , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted Thread-Index: AQHO2XRr3EzuqdqmjUmmnXMNrpIP/JoVNmsg Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:49:38 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:49:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1377118542.8019.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5277C04C.7070300@sonic.net> In-Reply-To: <5277C04C.7070300@sonic.net> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.110.213] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Erik Nordmark \(nordmark@acm.org\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:50:40 -0000 Hi Erik and all: Considering that the device access link may be wireless or that the device = may be operating on batteries, whatever we can do in the infrastructure wou= ld be welcome. The Wireless ND SAIL draft allows to propagate a registration up a hierarch= y of registrars in a mapping system. We could leverage this to implement op= tion 1 between siblings. Both drafts will be discussed this morning. Cheers, Pascal -----Original Message----- From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@sonic.net]=20 Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 16:42 To: Mark ZZZ Smith; Samita Chakrabarti; 6man@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org Cc: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted > Further to this two or more NEAR scenario, even if the upstream network a= lways considers NEAR1 to be the closer to the EAHs, if the NEARs are protec= ted by a redundancy protocol such as VRRP, when VRRP switches from using NE= AR1 to NEAR2, how does NEAR2 acquire address registration information? Woul= d it be considered a EAH bootstrap event, so that all of the EAHs have to g= o through selection and then registration of a NEAR? While I think that wou= ld work, it would seem to be defeating the purpose of having a redundancy p= rotocol like VRRP which tries to make switching over between routers nearly= if not ideally transparent to downstream hosts. Good point - the VRRP case hasn't been worked through. For the non-VRRP case of multiple routers the hosts will see that there are= multiple and register with each one of them. But in the case of VRRP it lo= oks to the host as a single router. I can see three different ways to ensure that NEARs using VRRP can maintain= all the registrations: 1. A state checkpointing/synchronization protocol between the VRRP NEARs 2.= Making the hosts aware that they need to register at two different NEAR ad= dresses 2a. A bit of a hack would be to, in addition for the RA from the vi= rtual address, have the physical routers send a RA (with the E bit set) wit= h the lowest possible preference. 2b. Explicitly sending the additional registration addresses in a new RA op= tion. AFAIK there aren't IETF standard protocols for checkpointing, thus #1 would= potentially be a lot of work. And it would make the VRRP case quite differ= ent than the case of multiple NEARs not using VRRP. Hence I'd be inclined to define the "additional registration addresses"=20 option. Erik From nordmark@acm.org Mon Nov 4 07:59:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E0811E81F3; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:59:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 FqdQybCZmcoJ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:59:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A35921E8190; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA4Fx8Yn023323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:59:08 -0800 Received: from [31.133.180.117] (dhcp-b475.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rA4Fx7Rs018457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:59:08 -0800 Message-ID: <5277C44D.9090002@acm.org> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:59:09 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" , Mark ZZZ Smith , Samita Chakrabarti , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> References: <1377118542.8019.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5277C04C.7070300@sonic.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sonic-ID: C;umfCCWpF4xGpET29zN2kxQ== M;siLJCWpF4xGpET29zN2kxQ== Cc: "Erik Nordmark \(nordmark@acm.org\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:59:32 -0000 On 11/4/13 7:49 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Erik and all: > > Considering that the device access link may be wireless or that the device may be operating on batteries, whatever we can do in the infrastructure would be welcome. > The Wireless ND SAIL draft allows to propagate a registration up a hierarchy of registrars in a mapping system. We could leverage this to implement option 1 between siblings. > Both drafts will be discussed this morning. I don't know to what extent VRRP would be used in a wireless case. In a case of e.g., 802.11 the device sees a single point of failure in the form of the AP. But allowing a VRRP pair of NEARs to synchronize their registration state isn't something that we have to preclude - my observation is that we don't have IETF standard protocols which ensure (eventually) consistent state in two devices. The SAIL propagation, as I understand it, is more of a best effort approach with a fallback to rely on multicast NS on the backbone link. Such a best effort approach is fine in the SAIL context AFAICT, but wouldn't help the VRRP case. Regards, Erik > Cheers, > > Pascal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@sonic.net] > Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 16:42 > To: Mark ZZZ Smith; Samita Chakrabarti; 6man@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org > Cc: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted > > >> Further to this two or more NEAR scenario, even if the upstream network always considers NEAR1 to be the closer to the EAHs, if the NEARs are protected by a redundancy protocol such as VRRP, when VRRP switches from using NEAR1 to NEAR2, how does NEAR2 acquire address registration information? Would it be considered a EAH bootstrap event, so that all of the EAHs have to go through selection and then registration of a NEAR? While I think that would work, it would seem to be defeating the purpose of having a redundancy protocol like VRRP which tries to make switching over between routers nearly if not ideally transparent to downstream hosts. > > Good point - the VRRP case hasn't been worked through. > > For the non-VRRP case of multiple routers the hosts will see that there are multiple and register with each one of them. But in the case of VRRP it looks to the host as a single router. > > I can see three different ways to ensure that NEARs using VRRP can maintain all the registrations: > 1. A state checkpointing/synchronization protocol between the VRRP NEARs 2. Making the hosts aware that they need to register at two different NEAR addresses 2a. A bit of a hack would be to, in addition for the RA from the virtual address, have the physical routers send a RA (with the E bit set) with the lowest possible preference. > 2b. Explicitly sending the additional registration addresses in a new RA option. > > AFAIK there aren't IETF standard protocols for checkpointing, thus #1 would potentially be a lot of work. And it would make the VRRP case quite different than the case of multiple NEARs not using VRRP. > > Hence I'd be inclined to define the "additional registration addresses" > option. > > Erik > > From nordmark@sonic.net Mon Nov 4 07:46:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FAA21E81A5; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:45:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 zv3KPjFQY7Ge; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF4521E8174; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA4Fg3nC010361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:42:03 -0800 Received: from [31.133.180.117] (dhcp-b475.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rA4Fg21D017086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:42:03 -0800 Message-ID: <5277C04C.7070300@sonic.net> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:42:04 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark ZZZ Smith , Samita Chakrabarti , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> References: <1377118542.8019.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1377118542.8019.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sonic-ID: C;mnjNpmdF4xGVH1gAt3+xLg== M;ND7SpmdF4xGVH1gAt3+xLg== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:17:58 -0800 Cc: "Erik Nordmark \(nordmark@acm.org\)" , "pthubert@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:46:25 -0000 > Further to this two or more NEAR scenario, even if the upstream network always considers NEAR1 to be the closer to the EAHs, if the NEARs are protected by a redundancy protocol such as VRRP, when VRRP switches from using NEAR1 to NEAR2, how does NEAR2 acquire address registration information? Would it be considered a EAH bootstrap event, so that all of the EAHs have to go through selection and then registration of a NEAR? While I think that would work, it would seem to be defeating the purpose of having a redundancy protocol like VRRP which tries to make switching over between routers nearly if not ideally transparent to downstream hosts. Good point - the VRRP case hasn't been worked through. For the non-VRRP case of multiple routers the hosts will see that there are multiple and register with each one of them. But in the case of VRRP it looks to the host as a single router. I can see three different ways to ensure that NEARs using VRRP can maintain all the registrations: 1. A state checkpointing/synchronization protocol between the VRRP NEARs 2. Making the hosts aware that they need to register at two different NEAR addresses 2a. A bit of a hack would be to, in addition for the RA from the virtual address, have the physical routers send a RA (with the E bit set) with the lowest possible preference. 2b. Explicitly sending the additional registration addresses in a new RA option. AFAIK there aren't IETF standard protocols for checkpointing, thus #1 would potentially be a lot of work. And it would make the VRRP case quite different than the case of multiple NEARs not using VRRP. Hence I'd be inclined to define the "additional registration addresses" option. Erik From pthubert@cisco.com Mon Nov 4 10:12:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9E721E81C0; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:12:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 DxQkpAZY7lhq; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:11:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E7B21E8097; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:11:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3932; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383588704; x=1384798304; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gkgPg2wAq00THrGtT+o6N7+zmzsr4VsDNTfK78D5iCk=; b=deL5jH2dt+a+ILaXOFr8wg5N2P5sjCJH8zSWT0194IO7NWTtPusvmn7J Gnzpuy31x9W+NvI1rt/3hI6WI021rRFkFEw1/KUYVGC020H0YShnvOmbF xYlwZJ1xgHCgenyElYDNVgBoK0CNRhnPY7yhIOUAk2AjW2EA1akjEhfM1 g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFANDid1KtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC78+gSkWdIIlAQEBAwE6RAcEAgEIEQQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEARIIh3MGvlqOCYEeOAaDGoEOA6oTgyaCKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,634,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="280442068" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2013 18:11:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA4IBe7s024432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:11:40 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:11:40 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Erik Nordmark , Mark ZZZ Smith , Samita Chakrabarti , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted Thread-Index: AQHO2XRr3EzuqdqmjUmmnXMNrpIP/JoVNmsggABo2YD//7CE4A== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:11:40 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:11:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1377118542.8019.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5277C04C.7070300@sonic.net> <5277C44D.9090002@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <5277C44D.9090002@acm.org> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.169.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:12:04 -0000 Hello Erik: The wireless link fixes itself with re-association to an alternate AP and d= oing so they would probably reregister. The problem that I see here is if the change of NEAR with an VRRP group hap= pens transparently to the device, do we agree? Pascal -----Original Message----- From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@acm.org]=20 Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 07:59 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Mark ZZZ Smith; Samita Chakrabarti; 6man@iet= f.org; 6lo@ietf.org Cc: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org) Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted On 11/4/13 7:49 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Erik and all: > > Considering that the device access link may be wireless or that the devic= e may be operating on batteries, whatever we can do in the infrastructure w= ould be welcome. > The Wireless ND SAIL draft allows to propagate a registration up a hierar= chy of registrars in a mapping system. We could leverage this to implement = option 1 between siblings. > Both drafts will be discussed this morning. I don't know to what extent VRRP would be used in a wireless case. In a cas= e of e.g., 802.11 the device sees a single point of failure in the form of = the AP. But allowing a VRRP pair of NEARs to synchronize their registration state i= sn't something that we have to preclude - my observation is that we don't h= ave IETF standard protocols which ensure (eventually) consistent state in t= wo devices. The SAIL propagation, as I understand it, is more of a best effort approach= with a fallback to rely on multicast NS on the backbone link.=20 Such a best effort approach is fine in the SAIL context AFAICT, but wouldn'= t help the VRRP case. Regards, Erik > Cheers, > > Pascal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@sonic.net] > Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 16:42 > To: Mark ZZZ Smith; Samita Chakrabarti; 6man@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org > Cc: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted > > >> Further to this two or more NEAR scenario, even if the upstream network = always considers NEAR1 to be the closer to the EAHs, if the NEARs are prote= cted by a redundancy protocol such as VRRP, when VRRP switches from using N= EAR1 to NEAR2, how does NEAR2 acquire address registration information? Wou= ld it be considered a EAH bootstrap event, so that all of the EAHs have to = go through selection and then registration of a NEAR? While I think that wo= uld work, it would seem to be defeating the purpose of having a redundancy = protocol like VRRP which tries to make switching over between routers nearl= y if not ideally transparent to downstream hosts. > > Good point - the VRRP case hasn't been worked through. > > For the non-VRRP case of multiple routers the hosts will see that there a= re multiple and register with each one of them. But in the case of VRRP it = looks to the host as a single router. > > I can see three different ways to ensure that NEARs using VRRP can mainta= in all the registrations: > 1. A state checkpointing/synchronization protocol between the VRRP NEARs = 2. Making the hosts aware that they need to register at two different NEAR = addresses 2a. A bit of a hack would be to, in addition for the RA from the = virtual address, have the physical routers send a RA (with the E bit set) w= ith the lowest possible preference. > 2b. Explicitly sending the additional registration addresses in a new RA = option. > > AFAIK there aren't IETF standard protocols for checkpointing, thus #1 wou= ld potentially be a lot of work. And it would make the VRRP case quite diff= erent than the case of multiple NEARs not using VRRP. > > Hence I'd be inclined to define the "additional registration addresses" > option. > > Erik > > From nordmark@acm.org Mon Nov 4 13:31:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DAE11E818E; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:31:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 KTPNMOHkcFmy; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01CB11E80FA; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA4LVGpN005607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:31:16 -0800 Received: from [31.133.180.117] (dhcp-b475.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rA4LVFJ8001683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:31:15 -0800 Message-ID: <52781223.4090206@acm.org> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:31:15 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" , Erik Nordmark , Mark ZZZ Smith , Samita Chakrabarti , "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> References: <1377118542.8019.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5277C04C.7070300@sonic.net> <5277C44D.9090002@acm.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sonic-ID: C;avqfb5hF4xGh6D29zN2kxQ== M;QoWmb5hF4xGh6D29zN2kxQ== Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:31:31 -0000 On 11/4/13 10:11 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:> Hello Erik: > > The wireless link fixes itself with re-association to an alternate AP and doing so they would probably reregister. > The problem that I see here is if the change of NEAR with an VRRP group happens transparently to the device, do we agree? Pascal, My though it is that a EAH would register (and maintain registration) with all the NEAR physical routers which are part of the virtual router. That requires that the EAH finds out about about the physical routers (in the form of additional registration addresses). Thus when there is a VRRP failover there is nothing that the EAH would need to do; the registrations are already in the new active physical router. In that model when configuring VRRP on a NEAR router it would make sense to also enable sending this new "additional registration addresses" option in the RAs. However, if the VRRP group of NEARs has some other way to synchronize their state, then they can use that and not send this new option in the RAs. Regards, Erik > Pascal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@acm.org] > Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 07:59 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Mark ZZZ Smith; Samita Chakrabarti; 6man@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org > Cc: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org) > Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted > > On 11/4/13 7:49 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> Hi Erik and all: >> >> Considering that the device access link may be wireless or that the device may be operating on batteries, whatever we can do in the infrastructure would be welcome. >> The Wireless ND SAIL draft allows to propagate a registration up a hierarchy of registrars in a mapping system. We could leverage this to implement option 1 between siblings. >> Both drafts will be discussed this morning. > > I don't know to what extent VRRP would be used in a wireless case. In a case of e.g., 802.11 the device sees a single point of failure in the form of the AP. > > But allowing a VRRP pair of NEARs to synchronize their registration state isn't something that we have to preclude - my observation is that we don't have IETF standard protocols which ensure (eventually) consistent state in two devices. > The SAIL propagation, as I understand it, is more of a best effort approach with a fallback to rely on multicast NS on the backbone link. > Such a best effort approach is fine in the SAIL context AFAICT, but wouldn't help the VRRP case. > > Regards, > Erik > >> Cheers, >> >> Pascal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordmark@sonic.net] >> Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 16:42 >> To: Mark ZZZ Smith; Samita Chakrabarti; 6man@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org >> Cc: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org); Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >> Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-02 submitted >> >> >>> Further to this two or more NEAR scenario, even if the upstream network always considers NEAR1 to be the closer to the EAHs, if the NEARs are protected by a redundancy protocol such as VRRP, when VRRP switches from using NEAR1 to NEAR2, how does NEAR2 acquire address registration information? Would it be considered a EAH bootstrap event, so that all of the EAHs have to go through selection and then registration of a NEAR? While I think that would work, it would seem to be defeating the purpose of having a redundancy protocol like VRRP which tries to make switching over between routers nearly if not ideally transparent to downstream hosts. >> >> Good point - the VRRP case hasn't been worked through. >> >> For the non-VRRP case of multiple routers the hosts will see that there are multiple and register with each one of them. But in the case of VRRP it looks to the host as a single router. >> >> I can see three different ways to ensure that NEARs using VRRP can maintain all the registrations: >> 1. A state checkpointing/synchronization protocol between the VRRP NEARs 2. Making the hosts aware that they need to register at two different NEAR addresses 2a. A bit of a hack would be to, in addition for the RA from the virtual address, have the physical routers send a RA (with the E bit set) with the lowest possible preference. >> 2b. Explicitly sending the additional registration addresses in a new RA option. >> >> AFAIK there aren't IETF standard protocols for checkpointing, thus #1 would potentially be a lot of work. And it would make the VRRP case quite different than the case of multiple NEARs not using VRRP. >> >> Hence I'd be inclined to define the "additional registration addresses" >> option. >> >> Erik >> >> > > From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Nov 6 11:02:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0188021E809D for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 1VGdmP5eVzkw for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x22a.google.com (mail-vc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FC711E817A for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hv10so7097815vcb.1 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:02:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=48YkK/WJwPs7Qu5qhD8ehKveMQPR5HlGdfu0tWrW2gc=; b=UDZLfXJYHdbVCqiGrCggMHkLvEZY7snpEjkJq3fw5IUbecMW3fy6Vzz7+6GbGM1PIv y9u2GTY6NN9RCV5Ndfddfm/tczroVIZI+ZLS3vBGB1Q4DCbf+Y7gybDg5wQ+auEj9A5s rzN0/GtohCjWP3VxMnjojMx4AXsnW+Cs7ccDw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=48YkK/WJwPs7Qu5qhD8ehKveMQPR5HlGdfu0tWrW2gc=; b=eYqkvqz1wF03vzf/VojQX3cqVjd9cin7tc3p3qt+uHAn9JRjBVTOvODRl1pZUytGmf d1y+buLT39hbBHDbllDbMarTk4De5xUth9FgUGtqm8T//Psl4lio3T6vBIc0vivTW2aT 869WsNYMMM7ATkQ4tyo0QIAnK0/EI3mnKde+CmNlIDagIGd3JT5gL/xrWpSh0Kx4YXiX hLYfYCJVrFN4+PG+2jpqPS1lNxmuah5qYzRS/N4wK63Ou/pUKI3OrDJpl8E9LshBxZQM DRnfbcl9nRevRM7CriarFnzdwsMzbtKgylPTEd0jpg0D19w9dXQh/QJMkrggjA00VNjm baMA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkJ9Wu9Chs8jqifU0l0AcB8ATs+MhVbfQgGvQwdVY7eNklfHmzbDOUcyXR6MX0VKZPjgJLJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.100.244 with SMTP id fb20mr3711230veb.6.1383764560576; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:02:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:02:40 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:02:42 -0000 The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. Thanks Ulrich From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Nov 6 11:03:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C097211E817A for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:03:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 npBSKmg3RNdP for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22f.google.com (mail-ve0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4701321F9E95 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id jz11so3888197veb.20 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:03:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IGA7jMGP4D6sHC7X4TXAJd7W3DwbGikrDZ8nvDFdJOA=; b=GqrBV3Fko7JxVPsAQtKOO/5FBYPdp5ddlPtVDZhRdGE+7U5QxVVc+tmYPTQIgVBZpV xGeuKj0ke1vKUMaWbuAlTb4jm8nKa3jPbWNNY40cPxUgn5hOFvrBIlYpsNkAXORA/4Jf AdiDP2l+eHsFZS9THmWEZWp7QdBd5oHVt07aA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=IGA7jMGP4D6sHC7X4TXAJd7W3DwbGikrDZ8nvDFdJOA=; b=f+SbiCwV37i1yGybBhZ2+McoT8Pvl2q171Qq0zPEyyB4Al4MBGZ3WGtZligaSqDvlk TiU9RFDFug+ITJoMQPdo2bQ3j96v3LJMaTStpePUN3EiG2ROTGekriPF8cxoZfuldGOk Rd4en1nGVOYxW1n2PXrvvzfLBnbh9vxqSqUIkVLFGkcnzuXeFAQ8S9wAPi6ZCj/Ph/b7 kDY4JaIKYMQqakuV1tYoGuOUG7zD/LHaVNIfjQZIUaov2wVxpfV5QKhzqinYuHn0NPdE xu0wT8MQf3iPMlnCOGEoBBLvIMmptad5e6T4eolXS1N0lkk0MzGjE0Uo7AItYJOJ4YfY 3wXg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlg15toXMiNWADU72UwGpHUFavcWiRO/2lbafPzGIVapmb/YU69e2CujmGCJONCaF1IvJpy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.105.199 with SMTP id u7mr3641850vco.1.1383764618857; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:03:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:03:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:03:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-ietf-6man-6lobac X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:03:39 -0000 The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. Thanks Ulrich From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Nov 6 11:06:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87FE321E816E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:06:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 1COpZVgDckCE for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x235.google.com (mail-vc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA72E21E8087 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ij19so6817548vcb.26 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6nJjWhKKpbzUpb5zHxaaTuiMma5moDajNMNoB5J2Mj8=; b=H80QlaWcEDpQBJWTsuuTMukxAYHK4O1mdlfumeUFtgtUPoAPYh6DhbtTIzyuuwV5Xm KT47ub3Oi3Mn+cIc1wm6dp3Uw/aN5UTuCOOOsy8pWhGX0MfhkSByZH23Kj8ph1sqJ1P0 9J64hrZIucXc9lc2MktkzGTLUmpU1bNgcwbEw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=6nJjWhKKpbzUpb5zHxaaTuiMma5moDajNMNoB5J2Mj8=; b=acv+8DAJkXxd9TuPoYgEBUTS0aWWhrnm7ZJbf4xVOX2paXXl98p8vBDhO8bMkaAqWW 3OjhHQKr0GgIBWeTN6NYpkMcbnt/4Gx0iDbJh7Lt2XWpR7uZg2EHWQnxr7oCs9QaBgKC j/naOrPMnHz0/eil7bygRKPDDk2+YvaHVumJnaJ2SDrcyPTUkrAPyspa5Y0FKVWdAowL 6lcKHhZNtT80V9zA4bgDsmLA2vch0h0Rp1NzniOq2GW+9xlFepLBaELXcgY+DGccdyga C1RLHQF7307tT6iBq3Goo65CjlwkQ36MJOuFrXmWKwcYIrUy3SQG/3vxb6ovliU4CGSy ugjw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpRcJT2Qu6mZ0Y+EojVQkrFgtU5LHbvsX+jSqnvdjSN0sbMSjMyHy5qHXMee/45g7rc98c MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.133.77 with SMTP id pa13mr3720566veb.21.1383764790353; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:06:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-bormann-6lo-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:06:31 -0000 The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-bormann-6lo-ghc should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. From ulrich@herberg.name Wed Nov 6 11:19:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198FF21E8087 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:19:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 1fPurIaUaHLI for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9E211E816F for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id cz12so3981961veb.3 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=e9+/mdUA2FA6o6hwpf7RRPOF+kXNPoWwrUywWzPgKTk=; b=OcSK+02+o+MxCe0W+AQhNHxRizQWrCwnTHmHlcWyzXPm1qTBA+jCD+O2ZAry1jZYE+ 1mqikG4GkisG/1AgOCsbM1CJyiL5VsjcLfPaHe1HmUtSxBrcJFganPIB9mtYkXIlJ9wQ sC8QFDI+CUyqRblfeKgTRJcheL40tJbzyo0BU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=e9+/mdUA2FA6o6hwpf7RRPOF+kXNPoWwrUywWzPgKTk=; b=nEWnckmxFrzxtdY4xLG0gt5dxhM5InABnpt2IoNasPmG/AphY8drUQTiH8Mw28B8UK +vLVpJnPNrc0cUcX3lwL1SX1wpgnnWzF1Ac9R9KbZiNfUP2E7mZSeNti87NXupIyIm4H OHqoAv6CSxXu7D/YzjlSBn4iLJUwRUxHF+1fZ8BSACKkhIUrkrjt3ar0EQ3VDJlWLqm+ VKg7owB+zYwIEy7YQiBBIqhcC6XXUV3wyukboFbpEknP/nuJegGux4UXGOfmSuAuaUOR sk/NHwnaJIdRphXHHrBBl/zAOMeA/hQar0UyVkehY8Ej+VnmG2Oe9uQpQhFdyHiWVcZ/ 69cQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn16adyttAmCwg4V6K7Lt/7rOL5Uj17NDV6alfL8+ULMkDmAfy2hjKQUFYBiLvu5f86n+Sp MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.168.205 with SMTP id zy13mr3760502veb.19.1383765553732; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:19:13 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [6lo] Modularity of draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:19:15 -0000 I interpreted the general feeling in the room to be that this is a very useful draft that fits well in the charter, and people seemed to be in favor of WG adoption. There were some concerns about modularity of the MIB module, in particular once we have the other IP-over-foo documents, e.g., would we require a common part of the 6lowpan MIB module and then optional parts of the MIB module for each type of technologies? We would like to see some discussion and hopefully some reviews of the draft with that in mind. Ideally, I want to ask for WG adoption in beginning of December, of course depending on the discussion. Regards Ulrich From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Wed Nov 6 11:25:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6B821E818D for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:25:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vP57j2yHwEJl for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F58321E809D for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B912008F; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:25:28 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZLe31c86XMT; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:25:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A24E2008C; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:25:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id CFD47292F894; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:25:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:25:22 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ulrich Herberg Message-ID: <20131106192522.GB85018@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Modularity of draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:25:39 -0000 On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:19:13AM -0800, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > I interpreted the general feeling in the room to be that this is a > very useful draft that fits well in the charter, and people seemed to > be in favor of WG adoption. There were some concerns about modularity > of the MIB module, in particular once we have the other IP-over-foo > documents, e.g., would we require a common part of the 6lowpan MIB > module and then optional parts of the MIB module for each type of > technologies? So far, I do not see a technical reason to split the module or something like that. Concerning the mesh counters, I propose to make them conditionally mandatory. In MIB modules, it is possible to group a number of objects and to organize the conformance statement in such a way that the counters are mandatory only if a certain feature is implemented (mesh header processing in this case). In other boxes, implementations such as Contiki that do not do mesh header processing would be compliant without implementing any of the counters. We might leave a counter, though, to count the frames with mesh headers receveid that were dropped. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 13:09:39 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732E721E81AB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:09:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 PHerZ7hS-DvB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D9721E817B for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:09:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131106210938.20962.34049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:09:38 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:09:39 -0000 URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/ From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 13:11:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAF921E8185 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:11:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 uM5VV1ZDeKRg for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:11:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B7F21E8198 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:11:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131106211148.20980.97747.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:11:48 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:11:51 -0000 URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/ From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 13:14:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4393421E817B for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:14:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 toTjS4zK9L24 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEC021E8198 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:14:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131106211458.20998.4947.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:14:58 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:14:59 -0000 Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption for draft-bormann-6lo-ghc=0B", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption for draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz=0B", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption for draft-ietf-6man-6lobac", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption for draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption of=C2=A0draft-bormann-6lo-6lowpan-roadmap", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption of=C2=A0draft-mariager-6lowpan-v6over-dect-ule=0B", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "6lo document on information model and Data model =E2=80= =93 First draft;=0B use draft-schoenw-6lo-mib as a starting point", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/ From ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 13:15:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766BC21E8182 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:15:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HNMjwuBNfRiP for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:15:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EED421E81BE for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:15:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: 6lo@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131106211525.20980.76909.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:15:25 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Subject: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 21:15:27 -0000 Changed milestone "WG decision on adoption of=C2=A0draft-thubert-6lo-forwarding-fragments", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. Changed milestone "First draft of a generic guideline on IPv6-over-foo", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/ From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Wed Nov 6 17:20:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B888011E8223 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:20:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 rKtvcUr++rw2 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B35B11E81CD for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:20:47 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7fbd8e0000011cc-b9-527aead5aa7b Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 05.28.04556.5DAEA725; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 02:20:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 20:20:21 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG Thread-Index: AQHO2zVS1FHb98mpP0yWJ87ldWSW0poY9zFg Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 01:20:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131106211525.20980.76909.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20131106211525.20980.76909.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiO7VV1VBBg2fdC2apwg4MHosWfKT KYAxissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj8c+3rAUT2CtW9P5gamD8wdbFyMkhIWAi0XToHCuELSZx4d56 oDgXh5DAEUaJJwuamCGcZYwSU/esZwSpYhOwkujo3cMOYosIKErsffYYyObgEBYwkDj8Ix0i bCix6P5sVgjbSGL98t9gNouAisT5s3fAbF4BX4nuppNgRwgJOEo8u7MEzOYUcJI4uXQZ2CpG oIO+n1rDBGIzC4hL3HoynwniUAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/+DekBZYsmT/Swg5zALaEqs36UP0aoo MaX7ITvEWkGJkzOfsExgFJ2FZOoshI5ZSDpmIelYwMiyipGjtDi1LDfdyHATIzDkj0mwOe5g XPDJ8hCjNAeLkjjvl7fOQUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYfc3P8S+TO7pR+P6k 5NVPbbxnmZ2YI2hwQalzggDTT+ZtLhXlrc+OODN3FUTNYFma+H3zXIkpd0R2LJ4ib8pf068a XRnm6sHpdcXlm9j2kGsCOyc4OF+wUL1+jJU/luWpyCodr0nh+2vUMqaYBWt3r8rf8vdGb9on m5BYnoyzOswHjuxY6f5ZiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAHTnLw0cCAAA= Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 01:20:52 -0000 DQoNCg0KPkNoYW5nZWQgbWlsZXN0b25lICJGaXJzdCBkcmFmdCBvZiBhIGdlbmVyaWMgZ3VpZGVs aW5lIG9uIElQdjYtb3Zlci1mb28iLCBzZXQgc3RhdGUgdG8gYWN0aXZlIGZyb20gcmV2aWV3LCBh Y2NlcHRpbmcgbmV3IG1pbGVzdG9uZS4NCg0KID4gVVJMOiBodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvd2cvNmxvL2NoYXJ0ZXIvDQpbU0M+XSANCltTQz5dICBZZXN0ZXJkYXksIHdlIGRpZCBu b3QgcGFydGljdWxhcmx5IGRpc2N1c3MgYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBtaWxlc3RvbmUsIHNpbmNlIHdlIHdh bnRlZCB0byBmb2N1cyBvbiB0aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgZHJhZnRzIGFuZCBpdGVtcy4NCg0KSG93ZXZl ciwgd2hpbGUgd2UgZGVmaW5lIDZsb3dwYW4gbWVhbmluZyBpbiB0aGUgcm9hZG1hcCBkb2N1bWVu dCAtLS0gd2UgY2FuIGRpc2N1c3MgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkgb2YgaGF2aW5nIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgZHJh ZnQgb24gdGhlIGdlbmVyYWwgZ3VpZGVsaW5lIG9mIGRldmVsb3BpbmcgYSBJUHY2LW92ZXItZm9v IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucy4gSXQgd2FzIG1lbnRpb25lZCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIEJPRiB0aGF0IGEg Z2VuZXJhbCBndWlkZWxpbmUgd291bGQgYmUgdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsIGZvciBmdXR1cmUgZGV2ZWxv cG1lbnRzLg0KDQpDb21tZW50cz8NCg0KLVNhbWl0YQ0KDQoNCg== From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Nov 6 18:14:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB0611E820A for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:14:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 jvZTdN13xIDB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0132D11E81A7 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7210202E0 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 22:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EF5A463B88; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:14:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCED363848 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:14:00 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: "6lo\@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20131106211525.20980.76909.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 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 Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 02:14:12 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Samita Chakrabarti wrote: > However, while we define 6lowpan meaning in the roadmap document --- = we > can discuss possibility of having a separate draft on the general > guideline of developing a IPv6-over-foo implementations. It was > mentioned during the BOF that a general guideline would be very helpf= ul > for future developments.=20 It would be useful for the roadmap to explain what the various building blocks that 6lowpan/6man defined (HC, fragletation, DAD, efficient-ND,etc.) and what the dependancies between them are. Which ones can one use without bringing in other bits. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUnr3ZoqHRg3pndX9AQKllQQAiceY0y4EJtJc7XdOJsEYzwwRHUaYIADZ H4eDQWyuGhlRQG1R17QfQaiG3o4YfHXgBRujX3uttZ9PUGBYoTEkVJJxijfuboqB 0Sy8UBAl5lCePa0/bsP9oYoKREA8Kdqidi0LRCFe/m1mQ7He6NZ3D+8oE/IYC0cu aOmekj4BHG0= =pXWH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From cabo@tzi.org Wed Nov 6 21:06:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA7711E8245 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:06:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.363 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cLBGCAwoFu2F for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:06:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCAA11E8172 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:06:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA756Bhw025590; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:06:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-9334.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9334.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.147.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BB72DE2; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:06:09 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <30589.1383790440@sandelman.ca> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:06:06 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20131106211525.20980.76909.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30589.1383790440@sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 05:06:35 -0000 On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:14, Michael Richardson = wrote: > It would be useful for the roadmap to explain what the various = building > blocks that 6lowpan/6man defined (HC, fragletation, DAD, = efficient-ND,etc.) > and what the dependancies between them are. Which ones can one use > without bringing in other bits. You mean in the sense of a guide for people defining new 6LoWPANs for = new radios? We had some hallway discussions about creating such a guide, including = =93what MAC features should I put in to be most useful for a 6LoWPAN=94. We probably want to keep such a spec developers guide separate from the = implementers=92 guide the current roadmap is, to reduce confusion. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Nov 7 07:33:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF87021E80E8 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:33:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 EDNBikbyfQ2y for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C6611E8102 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88D7200A9; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:33:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRvlpEKpqi5I; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:33:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5678020033; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:33:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id B679E29312ED; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:33:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:33:01 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Message-ID: <20131107153300.GA88698@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> References: <20131106192522.GB85018@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131106192522.GB85018@elstar.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [6lo] Modularity of draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:33:29 -0000 On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 08:25:22PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:19:13AM -0800, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > > I interpreted the general feeling in the room to be that this is a > > very useful draft that fits well in the charter, and people seemed to > > be in favor of WG adoption. There were some concerns about modularity > > of the MIB module, in particular once we have the other IP-over-foo > > documents, e.g., would we require a common part of the 6lowpan MIB > > module and then optional parts of the MIB module for each type of > > technologies? > > So far, I do not see a technical reason to split the module or > something like that. Concerning the mesh counters, I propose to make > them conditionally mandatory. > > In MIB modules, it is possible to group a number of objects and to > organize the conformance statement in such a way that the counters are > mandatory only if a certain feature is implemented (mesh header > processing in this case). In other boxes, implementations such as > Contiki that do not do mesh header processing would be compliant > without implementing any of the counters. We might leave a counter, > though, to count the frames with mesh headers receveid that were > dropped. I have just posted revision -01. Next to some wording changes, I have made the mesh counters conditionally mandatory. Find the diff here: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib-01 /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From d.sturek@att.net Thu Nov 7 08:38:36 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1515E21E8139 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:38:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.118 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 ATzcMEgErY45 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm12-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm12-vm7.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.246]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B5721E81C5 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.196.81.162] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:36 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.53] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:36 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:36 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1383842256; bh=bltLJDtKdXM5uCywXW1nut4jJlA5AAfqU0jzvUp9Euc=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=SEvfc7832lzlyHkQkyom1GxGr7GEkxWEzBKM81RKknpl8XfYLN3bSoxPBeKFFsBGYXjPqSadB0gJar4fiobWVIEUkJOa4N1qDxHROFxRlybEuPlvP84np7/OJAdyZU1H5p8Hu2gy4+1SDd0RDdIlbGUqbBRpmZvgZu/heDkxW5Y= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 186424.77899.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: JOZTAfQVM1kU9Ke7myWXd0IhdSnkJ_NMfRlcCq6EhvTGHjW 0SjMHYhMZCxgaFI99g4ZqkbDESAEGA7q2js38Jd8MpS.sFCclBcH5T58dG2P P1e7Pw4Qs7lzdPX0yM.ofwwkhF1Z.gEqZyJ84tYCYnaMDDWR4kLw.ddB.ASj MTazNKeZk7tCJQlRWHKrgwG_reKnCgz8uAkMTEAoaAHQEyjl1b1bMiE36lvi ELG3vgLH1eVvsBmnEo_8HRZ5iVQncrVLUJeNdBaGq.5HpmlZ2cXtBqw.Ag1x 9fhU2ZEfSCSKhMNLbHZqHxsEi82g48c1.ff2X9Pvz1CdeHhM5LDBw3Ielzby Hb9mUPA4nPJXUyxtvnesA_qQhj8132oCcZTz8CObETGnSOvORgc1y72aWqQy _qkEKHqjm7PbT0bQubxMzh2_BX2APRvSBC4raALMVOFXhUKsWoQQHZT8a.av i7_I1T9wMd6Urh27KB6TlvzEULgsO9yMR4_lq9X0HoIbt3jAKcx2X9tbpCy5 dGi01etzL6JY747MgVeajv8rwcjXnED6YDvqZNKuqU1N4hRQ- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [31.133.164.70] (d.sturek@31.133.164.70 with ) by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 07 Nov 2013 08:37:36 -0800 PST User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:59:47 -0800 From: Don Sturek To: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-ietf-6man-6lobac In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-ietf-6man-6lobac X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:38:38 -0000 Hi Ulrich, Agree we should adopt the draft. A couple of points that I think need clarification: 1) 6lobac applies only to the master (essentially, as I understood it from the presentation yesterday, the slaves stay as MS/TP only devices without IPv6 support) 2) Whether there are any ND implications (I believe the native MS/TP addresses are just 16 bits......) Don On 11/6/13 11:03 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: >The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac >should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the >adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. > >Thanks >Ulrich >_______________________________________________ >6lo mailing list >6lo@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo From d.sturek@att.net Thu Nov 7 08:38:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B39721E8139 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:38:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.863 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 cFkjnIkjTmiw for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:38:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm15-vm10.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm15-vm10.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2FF21E81C6 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:37:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.196.81.155] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:37 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.53] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:37 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1383842257; bh=yCaCCj4FWWm9o99CNye/SFJ9oXCx0yaceUIsMIFvPS0=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=FITyept2BohhF3glmYQIsAQIOnx/PV1ihLRvdF5KXOQm0ryB0maJ9kCkIRxBjqYbRvjhdoaR1s+THmtQ9dywqVV+m6h3AiKIXDpfYImotWjs2pQ8ZeGqjgiuBZhi5LCr0DbkJXc9mSuAcjrztX4kGOkP1a/g4EKsYhIwaZZ5WZ8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 532125.77899.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: LoUxvw8VM1mEMidbQOAi8KqSwgzOxaBpljIhfzgDQAKZLef eFky65wRrN0PzYTfU1cpAx8cCiHQ_Ayqt5AEbwvy9Grl.4LsIfasBQUDL81b zttIXsRdqqG5SdJFKS9xqg9sx3kOWxWQcOwykIZf6SCeriPC3HiQPtuQ48Zp M0ww2A1bf4f_0nl0onLqfzZWyAPvPZ7B_anv2pKRfBqbrUCh6gxYDwkFR9h2 a8hmoqmnMpEyj9OSsUDCHUTEIpbeGqCixqiUf4vFNljV8HiXXFoxgAGHZqSt NnDfQioZZyAK.N.eLxsTVgqO8dHr2kIoOdboocB9vt_KqznRg01YZL8Ppx6H iK7puvA13A51t9EAcGgHnGT_FSB7igWY7gerDO4IJI7xTZv3lbUWbgsR.7XA 6ya15O9FRj0cxUau.JVywGstDkU3lVGtNq78fsaps0qAfrLsSZtN5U6sKkCJ uB6D4CNK0QyeQ3fivIwEyU0p4WyBl2.b9nF1NEc6_XB.65Jm68bteLmaUSfp Qj3hWmIg6uMNXqeBnG8DkbXKyLceqQ_TzhfgzVvrDbAZpNXE- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [31.133.164.70] (d.sturek@31.133.164.70 with ) by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 07 Nov 2013 08:37:37 -0800 PST User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:58:52 -0800 From: Don Sturek To: Samita Chakrabarti , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:38:41 -0000 Hi Samita, Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo". I found that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even the way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topology...... Don On 11/6/13 5:20 PM, "Samita Chakrabarti" wrote: > > > >>Changed milestone "First draft of a generic guideline on IPv6-over-foo", >>set state to active from review, accepting new milestone. > > > URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/ >[SC>] >[SC>] Yesterday, we did not particularly discuss about this milestone, >since we wanted to focus on the existing drafts and items. > >However, while we define 6lowpan meaning in the roadmap document --- we >can discuss possibility of having a separate draft on the general >guideline of developing a IPv6-over-foo implementations. It was mentioned >during the BOF that a general guideline would be very helpful for future >developments. > >Comments? > >-Samita > > >_______________________________________________ >6lo mailing list >6lo@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo From cabo@tzi.org Thu Nov 7 09:08:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949E621E81EE for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:08:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.793, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 qUThu1mumREO for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E79B21E81D1 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:08:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA7H7vVR029098; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:07:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-98f2.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-98f2.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.152.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B311CEB; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:07:55 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:07:52 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: Samita Chakrabarti , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:08:39 -0000 On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Samita, >=20 > Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo". I = found > that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even = the > way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topology=85=85= Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might = want to address. So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though: We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless = ones that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option). If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be = something we need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also = developing RFC 6775 further to enable it to work in environments that = have legacy ND-classic nodes (=93Efficient ND=94). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From d.sturek@att.net Thu Nov 7 09:16:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB72A21E81E1 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:16:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.372, BAYES_05=-1.11, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 114OfIKACXjl for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:15:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm15-vm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm15-vm3.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F2611E8188 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:15:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.196.81.155] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:35 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.53] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Nov 2013 16:37:35 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1383842255; bh=p+4TLBiwBPb6G/PXuNkacl6M+lvOJyEP6L65bH+wmTo=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=JAQNYTQlvtkjGyhD+QtL5OqGQ/ESRV0tsBzlFjYMKJ3X00TqdALZH4EjCHWN+BlvIfCPXiuNF9tZ+u/q1Q5d6VGlvmbQS7AGv2S4D4bOrBgdd9/7Tvu90jcEtdeprtGOmEC/0lkqf6Lblh+1mTEtTwHl0wqIjeJb0zhcHka2xsM= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 105204.77899.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: DQx9wBcVM1kUbzJGPpXnf0hfqT_d492vjWn05pFoZJvHyN7 cIpJEW42aBcg5L4M1vo6SjcmkV3A7cgRbA7bEdwhKBy.O7pdPg8ByVZ6PYmV LAkIVCodH6NNNG8HL3ugmzYSH7tVqC1qXGN9smr1FSNW3uzGeqKMzCz.UKpK QyflGVSBTx5kbJjulmQTUmlkFQjgd1bgqgfESManilaHLRBPaPH7SX3mGFey SZlzYLeaT76agz0_mL.yz9B7crsS3N0WqtVM02IMyufU9334h.qSjXTS4FL9 8UebyJbIixG3bsFN4C.PxtHGn41OrQJa5K.zK7h6QKBb3Y9Tub9AYnJ6hIKG MN04fq3x0zvgGtsTwHIM5QGGQU_nRLcyuUr8W_W3OznqDrKgcSVG2kweWoYT fi_2Ft3zx8349MMSGZrm17T2l0dOyLpmcnNPKZeMBCpPBZPAQs5hSjUhHFgc H0WHXfFhg7Ix57ngTS7litnsn2kHTtzQ2Uk7Dotdgr4QygBIfsBLYW.lcU90 wJbG6mM9_IRpRBXX7NWcEus31n7eo9r9NMOPYpeUKRSwBbw-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- X-Rocket-Received: from [31.133.164.70] (d.sturek@31.133.164.70 with ) by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 07 Nov 2013 08:37:34 -0800 PST User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913 Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 12:57:45 -0800 From: Don Sturek To: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-bormann-6lo-ghc In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-bormann-6lo-ghc X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:16:12 -0000 Hi Ulrich, Agree that the draft should be adopted by the WG. Hereis one few point that I think need some attention: 1) Rationalizing use of ghc where the PDU size of the underlying technology varies from as small as 40 bytes up to nearly 1280 bytes Don On 11/6/13 11:06 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: >The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-bormann-6lo-ghc >should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the >adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. >_______________________________________________ >6lo mailing list >6lo@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 09:37:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D1611E8229 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:37:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.928 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 ZP0d2u5iLMGJ for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DAD11E8210 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:37:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id gq1so377151obb.16 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:37:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3axWc5hSZDC5TCsLIcEGCPzobY08mk4RfboCfPGTBq8=; b=RTaQuJNY9FbbSRukkP8LsdBj+lYDEDaj2xxH+BlIaPZBhMupDtlzi8dMshHiFIEK9C 70HORkoRe+P7/f6sD4306/1vOsX1scX4uVLYkDNGQnyek8pKnVBUsRZ9/zG5RPWwjT3L gMNapJnmoI6/HSQJHI5V5vS2Ix8Kl5HBwX2kG0DQr7XtHqbPYSn56DcZF0gWsghBkq0o Br2iW6C+uEVPkgfnQlPgOqcSsFJZlSUJULsnBdwrChUIeQJoqis/gmmWYpHw6FT2rr86 ZJEnHBMKt/fW+EqsSolSURfGqPSn9t+gPo3ArmpRDSKt3znzjY3pjS6tQzunQqwTKboB frEA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.247.68 with SMTP id yc4mr814959obc.67.1383845820255; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:37:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.73.6 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:37:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:37:00 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AAVByPYD1XzamKnowZu8FtivuX0 Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Don Sturek Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015384d68a589904ea99b6df Cc: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-ietf-6man-6lobac X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:37:22 -0000 --089e015384d68a589904ea99b6df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > Agree we should adopt the draft. > > Hi Don, The current version of this draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-6lobac-01 > A couple of points that I think need clarification: > 1) 6lobac applies only to the master (essentially, as I understood it > from the presentation yesterday, the slaves stay as MS/TP only devices > without IPv6 support) > The third paragraph in section 1.3 states Slave nodes transmit only when polled and are not considered part of this specification. 2) Whether there are any ND implications (I believe the native MS/TP > addresses are just 16 bits......) > > The unicast address mapping used by ND is spelled out in section 8 and is identical to the mapping used by RFC 4944 for short 802.15.4 MAC addresses. Hope that clarifies these two points. Regards, -K- > Don > > > On 11/6/13 11:03 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" wrote: > > >The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac > >should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the > >adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. > > > >Thanks > >Ulrich > >_______________________________________________ > >6lo mailing list > >6lo@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --089e015384d68a589904ea99b6df Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.= net> wrote:
Hi Ulrich,

Agree we should adopt the draft.

Hi Don,

The current version of this= draft can be found at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-6lobac-01 =A0
A couple of points that I think need clarification:
1) =A06lobac applies only to the master (essentially, as I understood it from the presentation yesterday, the slaves stay as MS/TP only devices
without IPv6 support)

The third paragra= ph in section 1.3 states
  Slave nodes transmit only whe=
n polled and are not considered
  part of this specification.
2) =A0Whether there are any ND implications (I believe the native MS/TP
addresses are just 16 bits......)

The unicast address mapping used by ND is spelled out in section 8
and is identical to the mapping used by RFC 4944 for short 802.15.4=
MAC addresses.

Hope that clarifies these two p= oints.

Regards, -K-
=A0
Don


On 11/6/13 11:03 AM, "Ulrich Herberg" <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:

>The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac
>should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the
>adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20.
>
>Thanks
>Ulrich
>_______________________________________________
>6lo mailing list
>6lo@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo


_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

--089e015384d68a589904ea99b6df-- From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 09:59:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A6F11E8208 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:59:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 rd3kuRZ4pQ-K for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:59:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CD821F968B for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id rA7HvSjW016396 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:57:28 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8164B20519B for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:57:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1BE204AEA for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:57:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.86.14]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id rA7HvPpm001352 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:57:27 +0100 Message-ID: <527BD485.9070204@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:57:25 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lo@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [6lo] [6lowpan] Side note: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 17:59:18 -0000 [sorry duplicate, corrected the destination address] Hello 6lo-ers, I would like to mention the existence of an IPv6-over-80211p document that I co-author: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11p Networks" A. Petrescu, R. Kuntz, P. Pfister, N. Benamar It has received a number of comments from IEEE participants as well as IETF participants. But we still need a home for it. The 802.11p link is related to constrained environments, in the following: - a high mobility aspect as an inherent characteristic of vehicles - onboard networks although not running 80211p themeselves, are typically connected to 80211p networks ran between vehicles, or between a vehicle and another fixed unit. Without derailing WG focus, may I ask you to comment on this draft? Alex _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From brian@innovationslab.net Thu Nov 7 10:11:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C742711E8264 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:11:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 R-zw1wSaxX7t for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4BC21E8179 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011898816E for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:08:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-b20e.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b20e.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.178.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF4D130003 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:08:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:08:16 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lo@ietf.org References: <527BD485.9070204@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <527BD485.9070204@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IG8GlOF5vN5l3BEXATgjjnvgCtHapqw7m" Subject: Re: [6lo] [6lowpan] Side note: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:11:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --IG8GlOF5vN5l3BEXATgjjnvgCtHapqw7m Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alex, Does your draft leverage the 6lowpan RFCs? If not, I would suggest talking to 6man. Regards, Brian On 11/7/13 12:57 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > [sorry duplicate, corrected the destination address] >=20 > Hello 6lo-ers, >=20 > I would like to mention the existence of an IPv6-over-80211p document > that I co-author: >=20 > draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt > "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11p Networks" > A. Petrescu, R. Kuntz, P. Pfister, N. Benamar >=20 > It has received a number of comments from IEEE participants as well as > IETF participants. But we still need a home for it. >=20 > The 802.11p link is related to constrained environments, in the followi= ng: > - a high mobility aspect as an inherent characteristic of > vehicles > - onboard networks although not running 80211p themeselves, are > typically connected to 80211p networks ran between vehicles, or > between a vehicle and another fixed unit. >=20 > Without derailing WG focus, may I ask you to comment on this draft? >=20 > Alex >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo --IG8GlOF5vN5l3BEXATgjjnvgCtHapqw7m Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSe9cQAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqF/0H/jSrRWyBHG+qbjaaV2O71SOH 7aYACzd8nfQO10G+uChVelSE6SpWSPDdwBXivNV4RimPWspwL/Lzwlu3i+6H7Fpw 6nYCSIWsCeeuTJUu1TtKFvbmncyT044bZ+tBdO9ajnHSoJwp2AJAlC0kJQrzoSdZ dk12z8fA6n3ld3gNn8LgubzxBJXU3PUTSCVJvXHfe++6rvphqmcTrYZLFXBf1Y/H bnZzSkrbUlphRiySvDnc+afrX7iUWbQ4luMa7blMXMD6lqDAHBnCK38mfKKMjRQi +LfOIWhPe9o4ff+mUoe6klzLFZMl0UPk+mb2LYnE5O0cb/hXegtcUAWj4aWrj5w= =RTIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IG8GlOF5vN5l3BEXATgjjnvgCtHapqw7m-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 10:16:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B6921E8118 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:16:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 6H9CfDcKcxLM for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:16:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD3421E8140 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:14:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id uy5so429550obc.38 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:14:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=saAcHkGk44iIJ0f/e6YM1i3i8rik8Ch5qclyPWskyF4=; b=QM1UfNpcrEGowBLOmvFTTyizF0SPfaxvdpYB0vpm1ACuBN7CQirMuHPqDFWbyvJa2x dm1Q+GzsViyi/mYNamYYrfHXhByBQvEXTzNaceqeqN3Bta1h/aFVeU5J7/dSrcR5ogAz 3h6hTXR/eRulY8xG86b5QKoRQ4HRl7Z1Oqi6LpGMkGred+6ExC5xk1WIQywJX48WXQgL GLUF3M2YPXO0OfdS/8eBVGmG0aZYQG9AAX08wLfwu83xw86yntmGb7WiHCQpwKMAi7gk FhIZ90V03d4GUl2FrlT6XafASFkvWINjyuYnx8EcUtAMTe0fggbUiLDjj19n3fCXJddr EhtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.221.230 with SMTP id qh6mr3046597obc.7.1383848071983; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:14:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.73.6 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:14:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> References: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:14:31 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LDmSs9odxYc1H3PZ500d7GeWKaI Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fcb8c0f92e04ea9a3ca1 Cc: Samita Chakrabarti , Don Sturek , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:16:34 -0000 --001a11c2fcb8c0f92e04ea9a3ca1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek wrote: > > > Hi Samita, > > > > Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo". I foun= d > > that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even > the > > way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topology=85= =85 > > Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might > want to address. > > So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though: > We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless > ones that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option). > > Just to reiterate, 6lobac has a dependency on 6CO for IPHC. If the group feels that ARO or some other ND optimization is appropriate, we can discuss this when the draft is adopted. -K- If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be something > we need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 677= 5 > further to enable it to work in environments that have legacy ND-classic > nodes (=93Efficient ND=94). > > Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --001a11c2fcb8c0f92e04ea9a3ca1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org= > wrote:
On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:

> Hi Samita,
>
> Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo&= quot;. =A0 I found
> that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even= the
> way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topo= logy=85=85

Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might wa= nt to address.

So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though:
We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless ones= that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option).

Just to reiterate, 6lobac has a dependency on 6CO for= IPHC.=A0 If the group
feels that ARO or some other ND optimization is a= ppropriate, we can discuss
this when the draft is adopted.
-K-

If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be something w= e need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 6775 f= urther to enable it to work in environments that have legacy ND-classic nod= es (=93Efficient ND=94).

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

--001a11c2fcb8c0f92e04ea9a3ca1-- From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Nov 7 10:33:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BC211E81B3 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 yEYQs-kUKJZk for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x22a.google.com (mail-vb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F46921E8147 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id p14so652700vbm.15 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j8anrKRaTbIG2ElnLztqAYSSqlDWinO6aGVLK42w1XA=; b=jAKM302J78a57twX4KfGYBsxr1bKt/DSxkHcRvt/0Aylj/WgWr8eIzaa3wDgDuQNsF IlY2u3p07NNyuyguJ05FLgOKpQCdZGrDC3b2mx1/ksXmrQ3k17pHnS+prKygbnXJVRXE sdwrvVZPouNZ6QKjLLMDjArF5WuGakvZ0gKts= 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=j8anrKRaTbIG2ElnLztqAYSSqlDWinO6aGVLK42w1XA=; b=Bb+R/PYA95Few+43JkZZzzW4MG7tLa1obg8Wyi6/1OzWRv6AcfAXwd8dG/myIBvAI9 bOhUd4nICx7lCkI4S+6uV58ypXsybGTBS5l9wIgP6ciuV0clp+ogG7MxtDFNL9u5nfKt DOIRqwkx62vtutmo7CwDWeS4rgaLCfMc4X8DVSdkmJ29UXGspMN0bdEuYmdvLYhcOSK2 SXlyiZcSSfJLdSALPUdTcYoAKrCbz+cN5/QduuyWSgxrB+W0KZZqn4vwm3ag6g32VDzK Qq7cU4LNm9vZ4B5Gqxf19TnmjI4Yp0thA21CbG4+D1izhmlKkZblpkDNDEKBl8Dopr9u Kplg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMigf+9MeugEwgxDtpa9wm+IBAiGLdQniNt3Si39H0bNRXhUnrOwosUiWtFKTXzq4Fhsun MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.157.232 with SMTP id wp8mr6527218vdb.4.1383849196506; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> References: <527BD485.9070204@gmail.com> <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Brian Haberman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] [6lowpan] Side note: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:33:19 -0000 Alex, after a quick glance on your draft, it seems to me that you do not use the 6lowpan adaptation layer, so it would be out of charter for 6lo (but possibly in scope of 6man). The relevant part of our charter is: 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of interest in constrained node networks Regards Ulrich On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Alex, > Does your draft leverage the 6lowpan RFCs? If not, I would suggest > talking to 6man. > > Regards, > Brian > > On 11/7/13 12:57 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> [sorry duplicate, corrected the destination address] >> >> Hello 6lo-ers, >> >> I would like to mention the existence of an IPv6-over-80211p document >> that I co-author: >> >> draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt >> "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11p Networks" >> A. Petrescu, R. Kuntz, P. Pfister, N. Benamar >> >> It has received a number of comments from IEEE participants as well as >> IETF participants. But we still need a home for it. >> >> The 802.11p link is related to constrained environments, in the following: >> - a high mobility aspect as an inherent characteristic of >> vehicles >> - onboard networks although not running 80211p themeselves, are >> typically connected to 80211p networks ran between vehicles, or >> between a vehicle and another fixed unit. >> >> Without derailing WG focus, may I ask you to comment on this draft? >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing list >> 6lo@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 10:35:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131C911E81CC for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:35:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 BAOwFU6lDuvR for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56A721E81EA for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id rA7IZDn3000654; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:35:13 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 38180205189; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:35:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E1A205103; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:35:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.86.7]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id rA7IZ4JZ011070; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:35:10 +0100 Message-ID: <527BDD58.7070402@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 19:35:04 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Haberman References: <527BD485.9070204@gmail.com> <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080102080305030400070801" Cc: 6lo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] [6lowpan] Side note: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:35:32 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080102080305030400070801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 07/11/2013 19:08, Brian Haberman a écrit : > Alex, Does your draft leverage the 6lowpan RFCs? If not, I would > suggest talking to 6man. Hello Brian, Yes, I will mention this draft to 6man, thanks for the suggestion. No, this draft does not leverage 6lowpan RFCs. (although links could be found, such as IPv6-over-802154 RFC would supposedly run over a part of an unknown Ethernet-80211 adaptation layer that IPv6-over-80211p draft describes.) Hello Ulrich, Yes, the Charter says so. Thanks for the clarification. Alex > > Regards, Brian > > On 11/7/13 12:57 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> [sorry duplicate, corrected the destination address] >> >> Hello 6lo-ers, >> >> I would like to mention the existence of an IPv6-over-80211p >> document that I co-author: >> >> draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt "Transmission of IPv6 >> Packets over IEEE 802.11p Networks" A. Petrescu, R. Kuntz, P. >> Pfister, N. Benamar >> >> It has received a number of comments from IEEE participants as well >> as IETF participants. But we still need a home for it. >> >> The 802.11p link is related to constrained environments, in the >> following: - a high mobility aspect as an inherent characteristic >> of vehicles - onboard networks although not running 80211p >> themeselves, are typically connected to 80211p networks ran between >> vehicles, or between a vehicle and another fixed unit. >> >> Without derailing WG focus, may I ask you to comment on this >> draft? >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing >> list 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list >> 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --------------080102080305030400070801 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Message joint" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Message joint" X-Mozilla-Keys: Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (132.166.192.6) by EXCAH-A0.intra.cea.fr (132.166.88.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.318.4; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:33 +0100 Received: from epeire1.extra.cea.fr (epeire1.extra.cea.fr [132.167.198.31]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-in-1.2) with ESMTP id rA7IXWTT010575 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:32 +0100 Received: from epeire1.extra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EB7F0463F9 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.103]) by epeire1.extra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45764641B for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-in-3.2) with ESMTP id rA7IXRuY020276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:32 +0100 Received: from spool.mail.gandi.net (mspool2-d.mgt.gandi.net [10.0.21.133]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8372517209A; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mfilter1-d.gandi.net (mfilter1-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.130]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7353417865C; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:27 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter1-d.gandi.net Received: from spool.mail.gandi.net ([10.0.21.133]) by mfilter1-d.gandi.net (mfilter1-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSZcQ4rMZE9c; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7935717863C for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:33:25 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x55so927435wes.22 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.160.165 with SMTP id xl5mr3838130wib.48.1383849204528; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:24 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-To: alexandru.petrescu@incognitus.eu X-Forwarded-For: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com alexandru.petrescu@incognitus.eu Delivered-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.61.13 with SMTP id v13csp31703wec; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.68.219.200 with SMTP id pq8mr5662119pbc.158.1383849202968; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1890:123a::1:1e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t6si3860715paa.221.2013.11.07.10.33.22 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of 6lo-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1890:123a::1:1e; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of 6lo-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1890:123a::1:1e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=6lo-bounces@ietf.org; dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9A721E814E; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1383849201; bh=1+QJAdcLxppnd/zc1sEjXFPYT9K9uanXiTAbw5Q4blo=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=ehnd9+g7VdetjI/XQs12Xd29hhqTB2jIC/QTf8iIpsfRoyRel/cp+RcsQeBLVdoVW JflvS65ULPXkOb1wbXZitr5LQxJYIrsH/Jx8dmkrdnDt5sLNiRz8XRn/Us/9g6HXcv C54UxPW0cbouP7SetfHOJTyGIIwh4paVELQSkHVM= X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BC211E81B3 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 yEYQs-kUKJZk for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x22a.google.com (mail-vb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F46921E8147 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id p14so652700vbm.15 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j8anrKRaTbIG2ElnLztqAYSSqlDWinO6aGVLK42w1XA=; b=jAKM302J78a57twX4KfGYBsxr1bKt/DSxkHcRvt/0Aylj/WgWr8eIzaa3wDgDuQNsF IlY2u3p07NNyuyguJ05FLgOKpQCdZGrDC3b2mx1/ksXmrQ3k17pHnS+prKygbnXJVRXE sdwrvVZPouNZ6QKjLLMDjArF5WuGakvZ0gKts= 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=j8anrKRaTbIG2ElnLztqAYSSqlDWinO6aGVLK42w1XA=; b=Bb+R/PYA95Few+43JkZZzzW4MG7tLa1obg8Wyi6/1OzWRv6AcfAXwd8dG/myIBvAI9 bOhUd4nICx7lCkI4S+6uV58ypXsybGTBS5l9wIgP6ciuV0clp+ogG7MxtDFNL9u5nfKt DOIRqwkx62vtutmo7CwDWeS4rgaLCfMc4X8DVSdkmJ29UXGspMN0bdEuYmdvLYhcOSK2 SXlyiZcSSfJLdSALPUdTcYoAKrCbz+cN5/QduuyWSgxrB+W0KZZqn4vwm3ag6g32VDzK Qq7cU4LNm9vZ4B5Gqxf19TnmjI4Yp0thA21CbG4+D1izhmlKkZblpkDNDEKBl8Dopr9u Kplg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMigf+9MeugEwgxDtpa9wm+IBAiGLdQniNt3Si39H0bNRXhUnrOwosUiWtFKTXzq4Fhsun X-Received: by 10.52.157.232 with SMTP id wp8mr6527218vdb.4.1383849196506; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> References: <527BD485.9070204@gmail.com> <527BD710.9060006@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:33:16 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: Brian Haberman CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] [6lowpan] Side note: draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: <6lo-bounces@ietf.org> Errors-To: 6lo-bounces@ietf.org X-CEA-Source: externe X-CEA-Spam: 8% X-CEA-Spam-Report: The following antispam rules were triggered by this message: Rule Score Description HTML_00_01 0.050 Message is 0-1% HTML HTML_00_10 0.050 Message is 0-10% HTML BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0.000 Body size of the text/plain part is less than 3k BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0.000 Message body size is 2000 to 2999 bytes BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0.000 Message body size is less than 5000 bytes. BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0.000 Message body size is less than 5000 bytes. DATE_TZ_NA 0.000 North American timezone -0400 to -0800 DKIM_SIGNATURE 0.000 DKIM_Signature WEBMAIL_SOURCE 0.000 message appears to come from a webmail service X-CEA-Spam-Hits: HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DKIM_SIGNATURE 0, WEBMAIL_SOURCE 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_HTTP_RECEIVED 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NS , __X_FORWARDED_FOR_GMAIL 0, __X_FORWARDED_TO 0, __YOUTUBE_RCVD 0 Return-Path: alexandru.petrescu+caf_=alexandru.petrescu=incognitus.eu@gmail.com X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: EXCAH-A0.intra.cea.fr X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 10 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-20234.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.467900-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Mailbox: SMEXr^dE;1035700;0;This mail has been scanned by Trend Micro ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange; X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Alex, after a quick glance on your draft, it seems to me that you do not use the 6lowpan adaptation layer, so it would be out of charter for 6lo (but possibly in scope of 6man). The relevant part of our charter is: 1. IPv6-over-foo adaptation layer specifications using 6LoWPAN technologies (RFC4944, RFC6282, RFC6775) for link layer technologies of interest in constrained node networks Regards Ulrich On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Alex, > Does your draft leverage the 6lowpan RFCs? If not, I would suggest > talking to 6man. > > Regards, > Brian > > On 11/7/13 12:57 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> [sorry duplicate, corrected the destination address] >> >> Hello 6lo-ers, >> >> I would like to mention the existence of an IPv6-over-80211p document >> that I co-author: >> >> draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-00.txt >> "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11p Networks" >> A. Petrescu, R. Kuntz, P. Pfister, N. Benamar >> >> It has received a number of comments from IEEE participants as well as >> IETF participants. But we still need a home for it. >> >> The 802.11p link is related to constrained environments, in the following: >> - a high mobility aspect as an inherent characteristic of >> vehicles >> - onboard networks although not running 80211p themeselves, are >> typically connected to 80211p networks ran between vehicles, or >> between a vehicle and another fixed unit. >> >> Without derailing WG focus, may I ask you to comment on this draft? >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing list >> 6lo@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo --------------080102080305030400070801-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Thu Nov 7 11:02:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E365E21E81CC for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:02:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 bVPyoNndUO0K for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:02:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E161A21E8200 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:00:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id gq1so493894obb.2 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:00:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LOmU4AKktctotuka6/kEs+6xXLgiigWFNiJBecsiBk4=; b=nYnZ3zfprldOBd4NN5y+0l2Ae1GrZtQAvkcnxURv13AtNOphL1lr1cbnp+/vIbRfJe GmX+YMlVF7XBMpiGnJdn42akhhxlPnYLlx94qbi8/+0rG+l5dRWHf1s7m76dbEGtAumj FWNsNLUmM4OiJHo1oFPv068c559qh6b6o59B/tIbyaN9j9wjHWP+ABozrLdEuZl/ULCG wobZbURbcFl3D3E82pfbPg2v16tqPa/ffFzUkXWK56pNpb5+cnj0xmt6tpoFa+GZ62Zs dOr/LF0kVNwIT7KPHAkkXMc7yWZZeIpoZkEsz2KKeYOb4FRzKhZTi7slhbc9iBxsqmMz 30Og== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.65.227 with SMTP id a3mr7759414oet.13.1383850834712; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:00:34 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.73.6 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:00:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:00:34 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Sq6qcb1Etrry5kYM3tL9XDP7BAI Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c257006ce10d04ea9ae163 Cc: Samita Chakrabarti , Don Sturek , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 19:02:35 -0000 --001a11c257006ce10d04ea9ae163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek wrote: >> >> > Hi Samita, >> > >> > Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo". I fou= nd >> > that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even >> the >> > way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topology= =85=85 >> >> Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might >> want to address. >> >> So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though: >> We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless >> ones that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option). >> >> Just to reiterate, 6lobac has a dependency on 6CO for IPHC. If the grou= p > feels that ARO or some other ND optimization is appropriate, we can discu= ss > this when the draft is adopted. > > BTW, without going into details, if there are duplicate node IDs on an MS/TP link then the token probably won't circulate properly. So ND is redundant when the link is working and impossible when it isn't. The 6lobac draft does allow IIDs to be formed e.g. from EUI-64s, but in practice this is unlikely. We might even want to delete this option from the draft given the security issues raised with this approach in other WGs. -K- > > If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be something >> we need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 67= 75 >> further to enable it to work in environments that have legacy ND-classic >> nodes (=93Efficient ND=94). >> >> Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing list >> 6lo@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> > > --001a11c257006ce10d04ea9ae163 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.or= g> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Carsten = Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:

> Hi Samita,
>
> Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo&= quot;. =A0 I found
> that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even= the
> way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topo= logy=85=85

Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might wa= nt to address.

So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though:
We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless ones= that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option).

Just to reiterate, 6lobac has a dependency on 6= CO for IPHC.=A0 If the group
feels that ARO or some other ND optimizatio= n is appropriate, we can discuss
this when the draft is adopt= ed.

BTW, without go= ing into details, if there are duplicate node IDs on an MS/TP
link then = the token probably won't circulate properly.=A0 So ND is redundant when=
the link is working and impossible when it isn't.=A0 The 6lo= bac draft does allow IIDs
to be formed e.g. from EUI-64s, but= in practice this is unlikely.=A0 We might even
want to delete this opti= on from the draft given the security issues raised with
this approach in other WGs.

-K-

If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be something w= e need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 6775 f= urther to enable it to work in environments that have legacy ND-classic nod= es (=93Efficient ND=94).

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo


--001a11c257006ce10d04ea9ae163-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 11:50:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E6B11E8285; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:50:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yZh6AFA+4HwC; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEE011E8188; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:50:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131107195036.21849.27555.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:50:36 -0800 Cc: 6lo@ietf.org Subject: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-btle-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 19:50:37 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constraine= d Nodes Working Group of the IETF. Title : Transmission of IPv6 Packets over BLUETOOTH Low Energy Author(s) : Johanna Nieminen Teemu Savolainen Markus Isomaki Basavaraj Patil Zach Shelby Carles Gomez Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-btle-00.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2013-11-07 Abstract: BLUETOOTH Low Energy is a low power air interface technology defined by the BLUETOOTH Special Interest Group (BT-SIG). The standard BLUETOOTH radio has been widely implemented and available in mobile phones, notebook computers, audio headsets and many other devices. The low power version of BLUETOOTH is a new specification that enables the use of this air interface with devices such as sensors, smart meters, appliances, etc. The low power variant of BLUETOOTH is currently specified in the revision 4.0 of the BLUETOOTH specifications (BLUETOOTH 4.0). This document describes how IPv6 is transported over BLUETOOTH Low Energy using 6LoWPAN techniques. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-btle There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Thu Nov 7 14:49:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB8511E816F for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:49:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 jBBjX5tQ7fkK for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:49:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6965721F9D18 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:49:15 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f278e000005a8f-46-527c18e7d709 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 16.E3.23183.7E81C725; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:49:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:49:11 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Carsten Bormann , Don Sturek Thread-Topic: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG Thread-Index: AQHO2zVS1FHb98mpP0yWJ87ldWSW0poY9zFggABwygCAAO01AIAABy/g Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:49:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoO5ziZogg5tT5CyapwhYHJlyl9Xi UsN1Zgdmj2PL9jN7LFnyk8lj2qLMAOYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsEroybO+wLfvJWLNr1jK2BcTp3 FyMnh4SAicSHplPsELaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMEo0T/sF5SxjlLg47TUjSBWbgJVER+8esA4R AUeJSxPvg8WZBRQlbs3pAWrg4BAWMJA4/CMdosRQYtH92awgYREBN4ll601BwiwCKhIH3nxk BbF5BXwlti3ZyQxiCwnESazv3csGYnMKWEvMOLeWCcRmBLrt+6k1TBCbxCVuPZnPBHGzgMSS PeeZIWxRiZeP/7FC2MoSS57sZ4Go15O4MXUKG4StLbFs4WtmiL2CEidnPmGZwCg2C8nYWUha ZiFpmYWkZQEjyypGjtLi1LLcdCODTYzAiDkmwaa7g3HPS8tDjNIcLErivF/eOgcJCaQnlqRm p6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYLRZ+e9cxINlE//7iG6YHP1cWEDqs7l9Q0CwpnB64tzz8WfU q3uDX28M8/LcVHSzzMaTb365BLMFw7fH7v/tWC9vC33K3c1gz/Mpb+77n7t7MnXlDjy8YN16 xMlql0j91jV+Nn1J/XKFdQe73vyZcFuiOnfZ59P7dvzO51hwc91aacG4M6tXf1ViKc5INNRi LipOBABD1ujhZgIAAA== Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:49:22 -0000 Hi Carsten, I think Don brought up an important point in terms of 6lowpan-nd over diffe= rent radio technologies. Based on the current 6lowpan-nd(RFC 6775) we can separate out different co= mponents (multicast reduction, DAD or no-DAD, single-hop, multi-hop, 64-bit= MAC-address and less-than 64-bit MAC address etc. etc. ) and when each of= these components are useful. So, I'd assume these kind of discussions belong to the general guideline d= ocuments. [ speaking as a co-author of RFC6775] As for extending RFC6775, I am sure there should be opportunities to exte= nd it as we come up with more usecases with SLAAC. Thanks, -Samita -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:08 AM To: Don Sturek Cc: Samita Chakrabarti; 6lo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Samita, >=20 > Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo". I found > that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even=20 > the way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given=20 > topology.. Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might wa= nt to address. So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though: We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless ones= that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option). If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be something w= e need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 6775 f= urther to enable it to work in environments that have legacy ND-classic nod= es ("Efficient ND"). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Thu Nov 7 14:52:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAFF21E816A for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:52:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 za+-iOKD1mpx for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C0E21F9D18 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:52:49 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7fbd8e0000011cc-1a-527c19c09e62 Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F7.23.04556.0C91C725; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:52:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:52:45 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Kerry Lynn , Carsten Bormann Thread-Topic: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG Thread-Index: AQHO2zVS1FHb98mpP0yWJ87ldWSW0poY9zFggABwygCAAO01AIAAEp+A///5JWA= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:52:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C0FB2C4eusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrO5ByZogg65zLBbNUwQsjky5y2px qeE6s8Xl9auYHVg8ji3bz+zxdMJBJo8lS34yeUxblBnAEsVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV0TT1BGvB XeeK/zOa2BsYF1t3MXJySAiYSGybv5wVwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMARRonmC2eYIZxljBJv385m AqliE7CS6Ojdww5iiwg4SKzu+AdmMwPZb7asZeli5OAQFjCQOPwjHaLEUGLR/dmsELafxPt3 C8FsFgEViV+f9rCB2LwCvhIf/r5lgdi1lFHi0MxrrCBzOAUCJbp/l4DUMAId9/3UGiaIVeIS t57MZ4I4WkBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/+gnlGWWPJkPwtEfb7EpcdrWSB2CUqcnPmEZQKj6Cwko2Yh KZuFpAwiridxY+oUNghbW2LZwtfMELauxIx/h1iQxRcwsq9i5CgtTi3LTTcy3MQIjLxjEmyO OxgXfLI8xCjNwaIkzvvlrXOQkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBsbmjQWeTw5/WXg5 5txSf26Wd89UD02+pdIjPuffsXmZKkfVQqfP1I/349U6VFm92evotCp/89tyWhUOtdVz1TvO VN70OXxDYM3e3glevby2rT5GrDny2zbUbo/RvrhSoe+OwqlCuc26ZySbFk9hLm0oC0gqe8rf pclh1LbTktlZ/14V9wzbSUosxRmJhlrMRcWJAIQMn8WKAgAA Cc: Don Sturek , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:52:55 -0000 --_000_ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C0FB2C4eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable These are the kind of general guideline would be useful. Since 6LoBAC is using part of RFC4944 and part of IPHC implementation, it c= an also do the part of RFC 6775. 6CO is defined in RFC6775. In your case the network depth is only one hop. Thanks, -Samita From: kerlyn2001@gmail.com [mailto:kerlyn2001@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kerry= Lynn Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:15 AM To: Carsten Bormann Cc: Don Sturek; Samita Chakrabarti; 6lo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Carsten Bormann > wrote: On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58, Don Sturek > wrote: > Hi Samita, > > Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo". I found > that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even th= e > way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topology.....= . Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might wa= nt to address. So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though: We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless ones= that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option). Just to reiterate, 6lobac has a dependency on 6CO for IPHC. If the group feels that ARO or some other ND optimization is appropriate, we can discuss this when the draft is adopted. -K- If we need to develop RFC 6775 further, that would certainly be something w= e need to closely coordinate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 6775 f= urther to enable it to work in environments that have legacy ND-classic nod= es ("Efficient ND"). Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo --_000_ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C0FB2C4eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

These are the kind of gen= eral guideline would be useful.

 <= /p>

Since 6LoBAC is using par= t of RFC4944 and part of IPHC implementation, it can also do the part of RF= C 6775.

6CO is defined in RFC6775= . In your case the network depth is only one hop.

 <= /p>

Thanks,=

-Samita=

 <= /p>

From: kerlyn2001@gmail.com [mailto:kerlyn2001@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kerry Lynn
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:15 AM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: Don Sturek; Samita Chakrabarti; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG

 

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:= 07 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

On 06 Nov 2013, at 18:58,= Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net>= ; wrote:

> Hi Samita,
>
> Hopefully we won't forget the topic of ND for "IPv6 over foo"= ;.   I found
> that topic to be the most intertwined with address assignment and even= the

> way the underlying layer 2 technology operates over a given topology&#= 8230;…

Right, that is something that a roadmap for IP-over-foo developers might wa= nt to address.

So far, the selection criteria seems to be rather obvious, though:
We have one wired protocol that went with ND-classic and four wireless ones= that went with RFC 6775 (ARO option).

Just to reiterate, 6lobac= has a dependency on 6CO for IPHC.  If the group
feels that ARO or some other ND optimization is appropriate, we can discuss=

this when the draft is adopted.

-K-

If we need to develop RFC= 6775 further, that would certainly be something we need to closely coordin= ate with 6man, which is also developing RFC 6775 further to enable it to wo= rk in environments that have legacy ND-classic nodes (“Efficient ND”).

Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten


_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

 

--_000_ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C0FB2C4eusaamb103erics_-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Nov 7 14:55:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B2021E808A for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:55:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.308 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 d4pgL1zDHxjB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:55:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54A911E815B for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:55:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA7MtL4M016790; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:55:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-98f2.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-98f2.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.152.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D8768EF; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:55:18 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:55:14 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3E2DBD1E-F54F-43AF-A898-3FE47F89C5A4@tzi.org> References: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> To: Samita Chakrabarti X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816) Cc: Don Sturek , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:55:33 -0000 On 07 Nov 2013, at 14:49, Samita Chakrabarti = wrote: > So, I'd assume these kind of discussions belong to the general = guideline documents. [ speaking as a co-author of RFC6775] Right. What I was saying is that it may be a good idea to separate the = advice for implementers from the advice for designers of new = subnetworks. So I would make that two documents, one the 6lo[wpan] roadmap, and one a = new one a bit closer to RFC 3819. I can start the latter one by the end = of the month, if that is useful. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Thu Nov 7 15:11:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3240611E8255 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:11:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 EG01r7AQ6Vmr for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:11:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D770611E8264 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:11:32 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f278e000005a8f-4b-527c1e238008 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CE.C4.23183.32E1C725; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:11:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:11:22 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Carsten Bormann Thread-Topic: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG Thread-Index: AQHO2zVS1FHb98mpP0yWJ87ldWSW0poY9zFggABwygCAAO01AIAABy/ggABZ3gD//7AGAA== Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:11:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <130847AC-1C3F-4B9D-8B77-79A2BDC10FBE@tzi.org> <3E2DBD1E-F54F-43AF-A898-3FE47F89C5A4@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <3E2DBD1E-F54F-43AF-A898-3FE47F89C5A4@tzi.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK6yXE2QwZHl1hbNUwQsjky5y2px qeE6swOzx7Fl+5k9liz5yeQxbVFmAHMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bfKbNYCiZxVKz4c4CpgXEf WxcjJ4eEgInEqXn3oGwxiQv31gPZXBxCAkcYJQ7+2sEK4SxjlPi66yArSBWbgJVER+8edhBb REBJ4sLFNWDdzAIOEm+2rGXpYuTgEBYwkDj8Ix2ixFBi0f3ZrBB2mMT018sZQUpYBFQkPp3m AAnzCvhK3G1exwyx6jKjxLrODrDxnALWEk/XTgCzGYGO+35qDRPEKnGJW0/mM0EcLSCxZM95 ZghbVOLl43+sELayxJIn+1kg6vUkbkydAnWmtsSyha+ZIRYLSpyc+YRlAqPYLCRjZyFpmYWk ZRaSlgWMLKsYOUqLU8ty040MNjECo+aYBJvuDsY9Ly0PMUpzsCiJ83556xwkJJCeWJKanZpa kFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgbGsbIK0bfmUqKKZq9clbONaW3XD594XLY45l5j1W99ul/oSoJzL /dx9+iXnnzqMy/Mee5/0MsrR0vtzft4jjarKdQvr+/QkOyU/7+ibuMkwdMbPX3t03qulf/Xs u3y2Sl3Dtvji24xvyzMCvy/a9oGtte/xYZui/tnvbPduKvuTpBQTKbnjvIMSS3FGoqEWc1Fx IgDLNHF7aAIAAA== Cc: Don Sturek , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:11:42 -0000 As per milestone, the general guideline doc is due after March. But we shou= ld be able to start discussion now.. Thanks Carsten to intiate. I'd be happy to contribute on the generic guidel= ine part of ND as well. -Samita -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 2:55 PM To: Samita Chakrabarti Cc: Don Sturek; 6lo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] Milestones changed for 6lo WG On 07 Nov 2013, at 14:49, Samita Chakrabarti wrote: > So, I'd assume these kind of discussions belong to the general guideline= documents. [ speaking as a co-author of RFC6775] Right. What I was saying is that it may be a good idea to separate the adv= ice for implementers from the advice for designers of new subnetworks. So I would make that two documents, one the 6lo[wpan] roadmap, and one a ne= w one a bit closer to RFC 3819. I can start the latter one by the end of t= he month, if that is useful. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Sun Nov 10 15:43:48 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C5211E80F6 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:43:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 bltTRNkmEa7b for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FF221E8185 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 15:43:42 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f278e000005a8f-52-52801a2bed78 Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BF.2E.23183.B2A10825; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:43:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:43:39 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Thread-Topic: dinner consensus on trickle-mcast and multicast-scoopes Thread-Index: AQHO3MObPWCFjjFMLE6hgBfxhme0PZocWxxg Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:43:39 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5662.1383943492@sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <5662.1383943492@sandelman.ca> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrK62VEOQwbl35hbNUwQcGD2WLPnJ FMAYxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx7f5u1oKtOhWP1l5laWDcrdzFyMkhIWAicaX/PjOELSZx4d56 ti5GLg4hgSOMEnOXT2CBcJYzStw/uooRpIpNwEqio3cPO4gtIqAosffZYzBbWMBFor3jHDNE 3FXi+c3vUDVGEhM2drCC2CwCqhLHn/xjA7F5BXwlnnbvYgGxhQS0JFYeusQEYnMKaEtcvToX rJcR6KLvp9aAxZkFxCVuPZnPBHGpgMSSPeehrhaVePn4HyuErSzxfc4jFoh6HYkFuz+xQdja EssWvmaG2CsocXLmE5YJjKKzkIydhaRlFpKWWUhaFjCyrGLkKC1OLctNNzLYxAgM/GMSbLo7 GPe8tDzEKM3BoiTO++Wtc5CQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxhVZDeuOXP8uspMv ob+lKuOuRwZvw9pP338+UdC6KprpyRpyqMlL+r8584X3alY/ffeu1r1jq9U69xTDrT8/hUM8 zP1rDhxdcOXUBdc9q+u87FJeH317/iZb32XjptjVx3P9Xr9doioZsffg5YuHHzS4vdSyZHb5 3nP8292pk0sbtqUGeuWfVFRiKc5INNRiLipOBACtSUr3SgIAAA== Subject: [6lo] FW: dinner consensus on trickle-mcast and multicast-scoopes X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 23:43:48 -0000 Fyi... -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mic= hael Richardson Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:45 PM To: ipv6@ietf.org; roll@ietf.org Subject: dinner consensus on trickle-mcast and multicast-scoopes (I didn't have time to write a shorter note) (Resending because I got the 6= man list address wrong. Wish there was an alias) glossary for 6man readers: RPL =3D ROLL RFC6550 mesh-over routing protocol. MPL =3D ROLL draft-ietf-trickle-mcast multicast distribution protocol. This email is a bit long, but represents what I believe was the consensus t= hat was arrived at by a number of ROLL WG ID authors, some Zigbee IP expert= s, and Ralph. This consensus was arrived at slowly over Tuesday night and = Wednesday, and was brought to you by the letters B and I. =20 I will start with the executive summary: 1) there are some minor tweaks necessary to trickle-mcast to make it consistent with multicast-scopes, and to indicate that=20 encapsulation in scopes 4 and 5 are appropriate for some use cases 2) that the text in multicast-scopes that speaks of "administratively defined" is confusing to many, and a suggestion on different text will be posted in a reply to this email. =3D=3D=3D background and discussion Trickle-mcast must use/define scope 3 in order to get traffic to flow across the entire RPL LLN (mesh-over). The current multicast-scopes document makes scope 3 span all the interfaces of the nodes of a single ins= tance of a technology. The intention was that IP-over-FOO documents would = explain how this is defined, with the understanding that for 802.15.4 it would span all interfaces which are in a single PAN-ID. RPL, however, can and does run over many different link types, and there ar= e existing deployed systems that have mixes of 802.15.4/802.15.4G/802.11*/8= 02.3(wired), in some cases, with the technologies even alternating on a hop by hop basis. Both Zigbee IP, metering and home systems need to span multiple technologies for multicast,= and Zigbee IP SEP 2 specifies using multicast to do service discovering us= ing mDNS. =20 Many want to automatically configure a multicast scope to cover all of the = interfaces which are part of an RPL DODAG and/or that an address in the same (multi-link subnet) prefix. There was many months of confusing discussion about having this be the definition of scope 3, but th= e alternate view was that MPL was not tied to RPL, and that neither the DOD= AG nor the prefix were inherent physical properties of the network in the w= ay that a set of cables and a switch or a radio with a specific PANID. The origin of the second mis-understanding was that the text in multicast-s= copes (and rfc 4291) says: Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived The understanding of "administratively configured" for many people implies = truck rolls, or ssh logins or router CLI commands. It was only when this a= ssumption was clearly articulated that the origin of the conflict became cl= ear to all parties. The new understanding is that "administratively configured" is not limited = to the things that a human did it, but rather includes any processes or ope= rations that a human (including an IETF document) might cause. The intent of multicast-scopes is not to limit ways that=20 scopes 4+ can be determined, but to clarify that scopes <=3D3 are *not* int= ended to be defined by a physical (or physical-like) topologies. To put it another way, a human, looking at some non-virtualized equipement = likely can determine the extent of scope 1,2,3 even if there is no power co= nnected. The conclusion was that the group reached was that scope 3 can be defined o= n a per-technology basis, and in wireless links such as the 802.15.4 PANID. Where exactly to define this is still an open question, but we did conclude that the place is *not* in trickle-mcast. We are undecided if we need another worlds-shortest-RFC on 805.15.4 (effect= ively a 6lowpan/6lo/6man document) vs in multicast-scopes, but another RFC = is preferred by most. (Perhaps; all)=20 In another place, to be determined, possibly in applicability statements, o= r possibly in an application specific document (e.g. something like "mdns-o= ver-lln"), a process by which a scope 4 multicast boundary could be defined= to be something like the set of all interfaces which are in at least one D= ODAG. It should fall to homenet to define scope 5 for use in the home to cover th= e set of interfaces which are in the inside of the homenet. This should be= easy for homenet to articulate discover of the homenet boundary is already a work item. The LLN border router would be speaking homenet routing protocol on the interface that connects it to the = homenet, and would include the LLN scope 4 zone as part of the scope 5 homenet. This implies that LLNs will be using scope 5 to do mDNS resolution, and tha= t this packet will be carried through the LLNs various links encapsulated into a scope 3 packet. While it is likely that dnssd will not solve the multi-subnet problem using straight multicast, but rather usi= ng a proxy mechanism, use of scope 5 is agnostic to exactly how this would = be done. A mote that wishes to resolve only within the LLN may use scope 3 or 4, whi= le one that wants to possibly find things in any place of the home will use= scope 5. =20 -- Michael Richardson -on the road- From rdroms@cisco.com Tue Nov 12 06:33:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B7411E8178; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:33:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 u8-hbxWyztmC; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502D011E815C; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:32:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1579; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384266779; x=1385476379; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=A46QiSZP420ddItdQ9EDUeAuKSoQyJsp6IhPI3VGwaY=; b=ME5tTeo/ID8NVST+0ZYojvcE42wY/WOTP7i+kW1vZ4ibP0m0TJbcN1K6 StwEsiMBUCDL6KYiN+JL5X53zuQyuqWPp/Xrgvu+J5zX1v6I71CRY9Phx G3SRoI+3WdHFp9aXdqtC+MCVaC8JavMMqBDZcxmTsOxD3pmpXmR3bKACn o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiQFAEA7glKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4TQa/G4EnFnSCJQEBAQMBOj0CBQsCARkDAQIfEDIbAggCBA4FCYdyBggFviWPXw2DGoERA5gPgS+QW4Mmgio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,685,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="283693320" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2013 14:32:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rACEWwP3001753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:32:58 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.227]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:32:58 -0600 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO36llWVU3mHovmE25ODDEakEb8g== Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:32:56 +0000 Message-ID: <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.68.183] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5FA0A35C0A2B1547AA8EC354942CD507@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:33:07 -0000 This revision adds the definition of "scop 3" for IEEE 802.15.4 networks: 4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. I've cross-posted to 6lo to get review and comment from that WG. - Ralph Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02= .txt > Date: November 12, 2013 8:16:26 AM EST > To: Ralph Droms >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > has been successfully submitted by Ralph Droms and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes > Revision: 02 > Title: IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes > Creation date: 2013-11-11 > Group: 6man > Number of pages: 5 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicas= t-scopes > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-sco= pes-02 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-multi= cast-scopes-02 >=20 > Abstract: > This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 From pthubert@cisco.com Tue Nov 12 14:01:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5976211E810B; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:01:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.452 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 w4cq1Pk5c4Op; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D49E11E80E6; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:00:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2657; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384293656; x=1385503256; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ImdI0lkcTaHCqmJ01BBOlowFIX4D5VbdbjjSuRIThuY=; b=OBWVAv7cQN+tleyVWnVOPiEevfPw3yaGpsMtAbhQ2NFJzzug2LioM2PS iMINXYrBL1Vf1MLsPw1DZtl8YJEHWxYKzZidz90wpqP6rQk4V6Jm6RlG0 FaU5dn1bXjsycmSFobaMsO5mXRwTN8yfcm/JNnCXikKE9LL897GTthO9G I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjQFAL2jglKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwc4TQa/JIEqFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzQJAgUHBAIBCBEDAQEBCxQJBycLFAkIAgQBDQUIAYdyBggFvzGOJ4EHMQcGgxqBEQOZPpBbgWiBPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,688,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="284015442" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2013 22:00:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rACM0te5003374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:00:55 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:00:55 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO36llWVU3mHovmE25ODDEakEb8poiEW4Q Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:00:54 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:32:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.218.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:01:02 -0000 Hello Ralph: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not se= em to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -spec= ific going -local. As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also spec= ifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over an = isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems that = we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to have a= sentence saying that? Cheers, Pascal -----Original Message----- From: 6lo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph= Droms (rdroms) Sent: mardi 12 novembre 2013 08:33 To: ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; 6lo@ietf.org Subject: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-= scopes-02.txt This revision adds the definition of "scop 3" for IEEE 802.15.4 networks: 4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. I've cross-posted to 6lo to get review and comment from that WG. - Ralph Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > Date: November 12, 2013 8:16:26 AM EST > To: Ralph Droms >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > has been successfully submitted by Ralph Droms and posted to the IETF=20 > repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes > Revision: 02 > Title: IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes > Creation date: 2013-11-11 > Group: 6man > Number of pages: 5 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multicas= t-scopes > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-sco= pes-02 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-multi= cast-scopes-02 >=20 > Abstract: > This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of=20 > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.iet= f.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo From rdroms@cisco.com Tue Nov 12 14:04:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723C321E8098; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:04:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 6ap8gRWWPZVs; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:04:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8268B11E810C; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:04:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3162; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384293864; x=1385503464; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=KohhcpFOEN3ARb3kwlaA96ejNvAbM0vsJxcGVYOKyLU=; b=YxmWlEXdj4fEwlDIiYPGc6GWatzPnfuCdqKWb3xP6tjT8AMRYR/etLpt iFYZgLCtOS8QpbzY2KJCAXNv+Uhd2tmdBKgPgQdOpYKv2CI0tD1Ex7zaP qeIRvjYAotkcaiT3jvKl0qAWpUdMX47lFLLcA/AZzEMg3wNnvk4w6u7Pc Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjQFAK2kglKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABagwc4RwYGvySBKhZ0giUBAQEDAQEBATc0CQIFBwQCAQgRAwEBAR8JBycLFAkIAgQOBQmHcgYIBb82jieBBTMHBoMagREDmA+BL5BbgWiBPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,688,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="284016763" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2013 22:04:24 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rACM4N7r007356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:04:23 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.227]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:04:23 -0600 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO36llWVU3mHovmE25ODDEakEb8poiEW4QgAB6HQA= Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:04:22 +0000 Message-ID: <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.254.212] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <68CD4485231E4E4B8B4F2A4E26E0B56E@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 22:04:29 -0000 The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out http://www.iet= f.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: > Hello Ralph: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not = seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -sp= ecific going -local. > As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also sp= ecifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over a= n isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >=20 > If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems tha= t we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to have= a sentence saying that? >=20 > Cheers, > Pascal >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: 6lo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ral= ph Droms (rdroms) > Sent: mardi 12 novembre 2013 08:33 > To: ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List > Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicas= t-scopes-02.txt >=20 > This revision adds the definition of "scop 3" for IEEE 802.15.4 networks: >=20 > 4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 >=20 > When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to > include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. >=20 > I've cross-posted to 6lo to get review and comment from that WG. >=20 > - Ralph >=20 >=20 > Begin forwarded message: >=20 >> From: >> Subject: New Version Notification for=20 >> draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >> Date: November 12, 2013 8:16:26 AM EST >> To: Ralph Droms >>=20 >>=20 >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Ralph Droms and posted to the IETF=20 >> repository. >>=20 >> Filename: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes >> Revision: 02 >> Title: IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes >> Creation date: 2013-11-11 >> Group: 6man >> Number of pages: 5 >> URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-mul= ticast-scopes-02.txt >> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multica= st-scopes >> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-sc= opes-02 >> Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of=20 >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ie= tf.org. >>=20 >> The IETF Secretariat >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo From brian@innovationslab.net Wed Nov 13 05:21:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2284221E8135; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LTyVPhKRqLlZ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA5A21E8117; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408C788108; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from 10252612.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927B9136812E; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:21:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:21:40 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uBgo3DoqdwFTkShpEAgpPlmfCXRBXSnSL" Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:21:55 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --uBgo3DoqdwFTkShpEAgpPlmfCXRBXSnSL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pascal, On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: > The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out http://www= =2Eietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >=20 >=20 > On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >=20 >> Hello Ralph: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does n= ot seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found wa= s -specific going -local. >> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also= specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated o= ver an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >> >> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems = that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to= have a sentence saying that? >> Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this document is changing that? Regards, Brian --uBgo3DoqdwFTkShpEAgpPlmfCXRBXSnSL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSg3zlAAoJEBOZRqCi7goq8L0H/3MG99QYPQ1U4uRdLgm7lW6H mystTk7HcZXJzrJIPKMEJQ5FGc7wYrd7FhC++651iCGT41TKJu0XeJqWNynadda4 4G5I2gol5Sj1YTvPg4PDZyRO/pX7nEsrTqcExlx6tA95PnkCyybetA6QDpBNFM6V S2jJVZXxsXuJSD7qDZh7pGY/Fz0XK41hDdYhhU3Sq8XFpQkfNfDxAR/0jN22wvSD 8OB9lgiyG7lXFHE02vp2V+wF0KKr+whuMSuix9jz/hp5/DtYKt/yDjMxypnaDx0s muuRF/k6dVDi7SPBZaff8aQfkDXaiV9xrbbxnGssKvB5so81lpmu0ZNNMh/Z4NI= =LsmR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uBgo3DoqdwFTkShpEAgpPlmfCXRBXSnSL-- From pthubert@cisco.com Wed Nov 13 21:52:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC5121E81BC; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:52:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 tQzJn1gBW4Li; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:51:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E755221E81B5; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:51:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1802; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384408317; x=1385617917; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=r7NaOU4jtZLwDGWirI+gPZOzrxthk/oChNOmmBa/TFU=; b=TkNt6WxlACmaBnC1PdU5K90KzfA/hy4NVQZtmbDMwKqZqDUSTzke4Hd1 7jHCfLpJLcMWMRmh89KLIitnNsOYuokMLZ/z6mqnKvc17lD6krsZ/ehsO 1DloXX0JgZn0H0hb1JLQ4mDFnjVqAXznwf8opRJdY3WctVjhlCGkIeIUw M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwFABtkhFKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U78rgSkWdIIlAQEBBDo9AgwEAgEIEQQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEDgUIAYd4Db9OjieBBzEHBoMagREDmT+QXYFqgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,697,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="284611990" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 05:51:47 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAE5pk99007358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:51:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:51:46 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Brian Haberman Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO4HNJWVU3mHovmE25ODDEakEb8pokOE8Q Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:51:46 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:51:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.201.167] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:52:02 -0000 Hello Brian: 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admin. = I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though in= the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether we = want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is pr= obably something we want to clarify. Cheers Pascal -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@i= etf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multic= ast-scopes-02.txt Pascal, On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: > The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0 > 2.txt >=20 >=20 > On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >=20 >> Hello Ralph: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not= seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -s= pecific going -local. >> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also s= pecifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over = an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >> >> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems th= at we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to hav= e a sentence saying that? >> Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this document = is changing that? Regards, Brian From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Nov 14 01:21:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E445821E812C; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:21:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 V6bVDH-kd7te; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0005E21F9D19; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAE9L7sX020089; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:21:07 GMT X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk rAE9L7sX020089 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1384420867; bh=kRMR4jxHbUqtHjEO9N4nWSCrlO8=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=g0cLqsqkzYEAPK0hpVGg1EyzrPdcK5smmlEte8oTSsu+BqUGwWsst/lXlOlrsslY8 iIwv7vaAqY90G1wajHUYDYNp5xFKlADjzOZJY4vZJbZvcSNRo66XqSOPR9KO24/oY5 IY1YUbEYoxDwL37lC+hF35r1k9OGB876mxoxco+U= Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id pAD9L70959659825CR ret-id none; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:21:07 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.26] (5ad35a35.bb.sky.com [90.211.90.53] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAE9KdkI017596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:20:40 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) From: Tim Chown In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:20:39 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: sid=pAD9L7095965982500; tid=pAD9L70959659825CR; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=6:0; fails=0 X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: rAE9L7sX020089 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:30:16 -0800 Cc: Brian Haberman , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:21:25 -0000 On 14 Nov 2013, at 05:51, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) = wrote: > Hello Brian: >=20 > 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from = admin. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 = though in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. = Whether we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the = nesting is probably something we want to clarify. Are there use cases documented somewhere in a 6lo or 6lo-related draft? I'm interested as we're updating the homenet text about multicast = scopes. We have agreed some text in principle with Brian for that, but = it's interesting because we may, indeed are likely to, have 6lo networks = within future IPv6 home networks. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; = ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for = draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > Pascal, >=20 > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out=20 >> = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0 >> 2.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" = wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello Ralph: >>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does = not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found = was -specific going -local. >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft = also specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance = federated over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>>=20 >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. = Seems that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be = good to have a sentence saying that? >>>=20 >=20 > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this = document is changing that? >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From brian@innovationslab.net Thu Nov 14 05:22:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7F721E80A9; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:22:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 JhCtJd2dTuPJ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:22:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC7A21E8090; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:22:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480E68809F; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:22:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from 10252612.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC4B13680F2; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:22:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:22:38 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rSJEo6mjTaftRL8RKGCuKIOvGibl3dlHQ" Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:22:51 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --rSJEo6mjTaftRL8RKGCuKIOvGibl3dlHQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pascal, Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is mandated by RFC 4007. Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties: o Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links. (Note that the global zone has no boundary, and the boundary of an interface-local zone encloses just a single interface.) o Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., they can have no links or interfaces in common. o A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within zones of larger scope. That is, a smaller scope zone cannot include more topology than would any larger scope zone with which it shares any links or interfaces. o Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing perspective; i.e., packets sent from one interface to any other in the same zone are never routed outside the zone. Note, however, that if a zone contains a tunneled link (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel link [8]), a lower layer network of the tunnel can be located outside the zone without breaking the convexity property. I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properties. Regards, Brian On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hello Brian: >=20 > 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from adm= in. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 tho= ugh in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whe= ther we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nes= ting is probably something we want to clarify. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Pascal >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ip= v6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-mu= lticast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > Pascal, >=20 > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0= >> 2.txt >> >> >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >> >>> Hello Ralph: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does = not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found w= as -specific going -local. >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft als= o specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated = over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>> >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems= that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good t= o have a sentence saying that? >>> >=20 > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this docum= ent is changing that? >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 --rSJEo6mjTaftRL8RKGCuKIOvGibl3dlHQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJShM6jAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqxLQH/j65Nu1jJOuRjErBYOp0bJJg zV27Tx9v4C4bTElHue8gAHtjY+xoR3MdExFaEu4izRbTxvAPC+tXXbxJmIGnrL16 RZpcbCF/pdG1g/utOpZmZA8UqlmPaum+RhbU05lUwTEBYviIU+xdUL+MVIL/aNaa KWyfwPMny5tTZjKVl72t1JMmjuVTBpq8AS7RMzoRnc9lTbBCyVGdrdwPi2AbX7YQ x3NFj+jQkvnT3xBzXhCvP8/pnORVgz0aF53r2+ETx93vMLq54+gvt9CGaP16scVG qtu+drkrl9maRrCuKyMVTHpy2xYaRlXOpz6mECU1E+aH+ftoYlRhSLfhYtUi1kc= =UNRa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rSJEo6mjTaftRL8RKGCuKIOvGibl3dlHQ-- From pthubert@cisco.com Thu Nov 14 15:52:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E794611E8159; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:52:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 vCEib7-x3DMh; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:52:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B33221E80E2; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:52:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3682; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384473147; x=1385682747; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Vyzuw+lEYJ9etDV5M0FmxqXCnnbtQ4nyjYLgV02S98I=; b=iPEY83wo6xkIDkBSOuE/WKWM/IxFnFJZHKY6I/1GzOxK0z7DBf0QIJkA YSR0QxxLBunuQZqymxJumnkYkT8BG1PxtfljU5aIY8Q/KUv/pSpnl0pNg wpnljc+yCXq4lYXWlur4FvfsfIBoFqEBMSpMXIzSXjgJ+of12/9NA4B9h c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FALlhhVKtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABaDoJ5OFO/HoEgFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBNzQJAgUHBAIBCA4DAQMBAQEKFAkHJwsUAwYIAgQBDQUIAYdyBg3AfY4ngQcxBwaDGoERA5k/kF2Ban8/gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,702,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="285024770" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 23:52:26 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAENqQqn004842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:52:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:52:26 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Tim Chown , Brian Haberman Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO4RreZ/MxlpffAEipYTllbECB/ZolWRhg Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:52:25 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:50:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.92.43] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:52:36 -0000 Hello Tim; The 6TiSCH architecture documents a use case whereby a large (RPL based) LL= N is federated by an higher speed backbone such as Ethernet that mostly spa= ns the LLN. The LLN is partitioned by RPL in multiple DODAGs, and the roots of the DODA= Gs connect to the backbone to provide end to end connectivity over the form= ed multilink subnet. The LLN probably forms a single RPL Domain though we have not discussed tha= t yet. Discussing with Ralph, I understand that the RPL domain is 03 and th= e whole multilink subnet is 04. It results that we cannot address a single RPL instance or a single DODAG a= s a scope. The intersection with 802.15.4 PAN-ID still troubles me a bit bu= t that's another thread.=20 Cheers, Pascal -----Original Message----- From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk]=20 Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 03:21 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Cc: Brian Haberman; Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; 6lo@ietf.org= ; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; Ralph Droms (rdroms) Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multic= ast-scopes-02.txt On 14 Nov 2013, at 05:51, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wr= ote: > Hello Brian: >=20 > 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admin= . I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though = in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether w= e want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is = probably something we want to clarify. Are there use cases documented somewhere in a 6lo or 6lo-related draft? I'm interested as we're updating the homenet text about multicast scopes. = We have agreed some text in principle with Brian for that, but it's interes= ting because we may, indeed are likely to, have 6lo networks within future = IPv6 home networks. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6= @ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > Pascal, >=20 > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0 >> 2.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello Ralph: >>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does no= t seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -= specific going -local. >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also = specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over= an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>>=20 >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems t= hat we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to ha= ve a sentence saying that? >>>=20 >=20 > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this documen= t is changing that? >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pthubert@cisco.com Thu Nov 14 15:58:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D4B11E814D; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:58:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 tuuV-9VmLziy; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8105E11E8149; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:58:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4214; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384473517; x=1385683117; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=HA69uJVdEGHFIe3twx2KyKTPKqRJxRCBJVwzzzLDczY=; b=fSOQGXkfxL2znTsR5YScctSIAwPu28O0KtZ10BDiAqygecUFR+UVhEko xL9ynO5Et+74Z+XBKD43dosKvz+2EFvCES+dUdcWG20rameouOPvAMH9g G0ALfqWl8CmNcVLALoDS7wvuYwDve+wdCLcH7IwC72Jg99E9EsZOU1BYV o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwFAGBjhVKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABagwc4U78egSAWdIIlAQEBBDo9AgwEAgEIEQQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEDgUIAYd4DcB+jieBBzEHBoMagREDmT+QXYFqgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,702,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="282030612" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2013 23:58:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAENwaCb020355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:58:36 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.140]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:58:36 -0600 From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: Brian Haberman Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO4TyWZ/MxlpffAEipYTllbECB/ZolX+Vg Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:58:35 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:58:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.92.43] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:58:44 -0000 I mostly agree Brian; It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured administrative= ly and could lead to an 04 interpretation.=20 A RPL domain (that is an 03) that may span multiple PAN IDs. If PAN ID was = 04 that would have been reverse nesting.=20 The draft now clarifies that this is also an 03 but now we still have a pot= ential conflict between a RPL domain and a PAN. Would a RPL domain be constrained by the PAN ID?=20 In this case that would imply that all the LLN must always be a single PAN = and constrain the size of a subnet to 64K. There is a lot behind the sentence "care must be taken in the definition of= those larger scopes to ensure that inclusion constraint is met."=20 Cheers; Pascal -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 07:23 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@i= etf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multic= ast-scopes-02.txt Pascal, Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is mandated by RFC 4007. Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties: o Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links. (Note that the global zon= e has no boundary, and the boundary of an interface-local zone encloses jus= t a single interface.) o Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., they can have no links or = interfaces in common. o A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within zones= of larger scope. That is, a smaller scope zone cannot include more topolo= gy than would any larger scope zone with which it shares any links or inter= faces. o Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing perspective; i.e., p= ackets sent from one interface to any other in the same zone are never rout= ed outside the zone. Note, however, that if a zone contains a tunneled lin= k (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel link [8]), a lower layer network of the t= unnel can be located outside the zone without breaking the convexity proper= ty. I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properties. Regards, Brian On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hello Brian: >=20 > 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admin= . I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though = in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether w= e want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is = probably something we want to clarify. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Pascal >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and;=20 > ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > Pascal, >=20 > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes- >> 0 >> 2.txt >> >> >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >> >>> Hello Ralph: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does no= t seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -= specific going -local. >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also = specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over= an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>> >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems t= hat we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to ha= ve a sentence saying that? >>> >=20 > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this documen= t is changing that? >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Thu Nov 14 16:02:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAEB311E814D; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:02:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 aWlJXfTGwG5y; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:01:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB4611E8149; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:01:59 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7fbd8e0000011cc-50-52856475993c Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 80.CA.04556.57465825; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:01:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:01:57 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO3/M086twEsnn0EKJMq+TXoIX15olaQsQ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:01:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt25pSmuQwcw/6hbNUwQsXp59z2Qx Y8o7Ros3S+ewWzRdFnBg9ZjyeyOrx5IlP5kCmKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MtY9XcJesFq54tmS pawNjP2yXYwcHBICJhIH9nl3MXICmWISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjCKLHxz0ZWCGc5o8TVyf1sIFVs AlYSHb172EFsEYFEieMrDjCCFDELdDJKfN/6HqxIWCBO4vba2cwQRfESF65+ZYWwjSQ6/75n AdnMIqAq8f6CHkiYV8BXYtPtRUwQy14xSkyZuoYRJMEpYCuxdvFusF5GoPO+n1rDBGIzC4hL 3HoynwnibAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhbCVJb7PecQCUa8jsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzBCLBSVOznzC MoFRbBaSsbOQtMxC0jILScsCRpZVjBylxalluelGhpsYgRF0TILNcQfjgk+WhxilOViUxHm/ vHUOEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cDIq/9d1XHSz5eToh5eFtqxu2O//tpz+5ka Xj9R4ol7lHVpxf0pB0wiC33/zXPQdLvcuZM7++j/BUenHLnOd7qn/to/Nv5VHx8eUo8OVPJ7 qPL1luRJ0+S5q2Wbrp2rma05fQnzGsHybWcXl7lP+OOf0SezL6Mv4CLbdZ+Pu1oOfNhQXl06 v8xlphJLcUaioRZzUXEiAGyLBGNuAgAA Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:02:05 -0000 Indeed, Section 4 talks about the realm-local scope for IEEE 802.15.4 "4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID." In several places, I think there is a typo: s/scop /scope How about adding one or two examples in the appendix section to clarify th= e nested scope in the home-network containing two types of networks (wifi = and LLN) ? Perhaps, we expecting that LLN could have further division in sc= ope -- ie, IEEE 802.15.4 or BT-le or MS/TP networks. The example of mdns, rpl, and nd possibly will fall in different scopes.=20 Thanks, -Samita -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ral= ph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:04 PM To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo= @ietf.org Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multic= ast-scopes-02.txt The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out http://www.iet= f.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: > Hello Ralph: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not = seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -sp= ecific going -local. > As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also sp= ecifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over a= n isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >=20 > If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems tha= t we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to have= a sentence saying that? >=20 > Cheers, > Pascal >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: 6lo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 > Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Sent: mardi 12 novembre 2013 08:33 > To: ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List > Cc: Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > This revision adds the definition of "scop 3" for IEEE 802.15.4 networks: >=20 > 4. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 >=20 > When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to > include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. >=20 > I've cross-posted to 6lo to get review and comment from that WG. >=20 > - Ralph >=20 >=20 > Begin forwarded message: >=20 >> From: >> Subject: New Version Notification for=20 >> draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >> Date: November 12, 2013 8:16:26 AM EST >> To: Ralph Droms >>=20 >>=20 >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Ralph Droms and posted to the IETF=20 >> repository. >>=20 >> Filename: draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes >> Revision: 02 >> Title: IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes >> Creation date: 2013-11-11 >> Group: 6man >> Number of pages: 5 >> URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-mul= ticast-scopes-02.txt >> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multica= st-scopes >> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-sc= opes-02 >> Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of=20 >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ie= tf.org. >>=20 >> The IETF Secretariat >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Thu Nov 14 16:12:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7252A11E8165; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:12:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 hKzuZyKDkI-m; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0F711E812B; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:12:29 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f278e000005a8f-0c-528566ebb60c Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6D.69.23183.BE665825; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:12:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:12:27 -0500 From: Samita Chakrabarti To: Tim Chown , "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO4Rrv86twEsnn0EKJMq+TXoIX15olauiw Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:12:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuO7rtNYgg9OdhhbNUwQsZvb8Y7R4 efY9k8WMKe8YLd4sncNu0XRZwOLQnudsDuweU35vZPX4u87VY8mSn0weM49/YQlgieKySUnN ySxLLdK3S+DK2PLnB2PBW9GKb5emsjUwThPqYuTkkBAwkbj47QczhC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYEj jBLNd05AOcsZJZ7u/ckEUsUmYCXR0buHHcQWEQiXOHB1MgtIEbPAU0aJ79v/soIkhAXiJG6v nc0MURQvceHqV1YI20hi2naIOIuAqsSWB3/AhvIK+Ep0X/3EAmILCbSzSKxaZQcylFOglVFi ze0XYNsYge77fmoNWAOzgLjErSfzmSDuFpBYsuc81A+iEi8f/2OFsJUlvs95xAJRryOxYPcn NghbW2LZwtfMEIsFJU7OfMIygVFsFpKxs5C0zELSMgtJywJGllWMHKXFqWW56UYGmxiBsXZM gk13B+Oel5aHGKU5WJTEeb+8dQ4SEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwLhWuv99//6v mg2fey77G2nqxqvdO3XHR/LbQevVT/b2ZrmIZfG9XcO2IG9iw6LCpet+2KZo/pgdd/DyJdfJ xicCrd8cez/Lf0GJVeumNTqrJlnYPlaecC97ec0B4a0/jaem33206+6DK0p5rovFljDnXD8h NfGhw42H3+Z+16xJUzy6d+frDX6blViKMxINtZiLihMBMxWmE4MCAAA= Cc: Brian Haberman , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:12:35 -0000 Hi Tim, >Are there use cases documented somewhere in a 6lo or 6lo-related draft? >I'm interested as we're updating the homenet text about multicast scopes.= We have agreed some text in principle with Brian for that, but it's inter= esting because we may, indeed are likely to, have 6lo networks within futur= e IPv6 home networks. [SC>] AFAIK, 6lo/6lowpan basic documents do not discuss the multicast scop= es in details.=20 [SC>] It'll be certainly helpful to document the scopes of 6lo within the s= cope of home networks or equivalent. In addition I think, it'd be really helpful for implementers if we provide = some examples of scopes of different protocols in the 6man-multicast-scopes= doc along with the pointer to RFC 4007. Thanks, -Samita > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6= @ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > Pascal, >=20 > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0 >> 2.txt >>=20 >>=20 >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello Ralph: >>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does no= t seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -= specific going -local. >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also = specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over= an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>>=20 >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems t= hat we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to ha= ve a sentence saying that? >>>=20 >=20 > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this documen= t is changing that? >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From rdroms@cisco.com Thu Nov 14 16:22:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A3711E814C; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:22:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 fITKXFhLJVG7; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39F611E812B; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:22:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6642; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384474939; x=1385684539; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=dYdE5otBm1R98WHLPuXZu8lX9iqZfQ7vqDpAom5fxjk=; b=J4Ti6Oz37osrtd4Kp3x+DoKkS2Icgzq63RDfrY+pOHgdjJfiNFMNXaO9 9v35fQGJCS5ftU8OgIo+i2bbFYUfz2BcuQz20XVzBU1LMZyxgKHQraB63 Z0Z9b7WKvc+OS5pnzTCUWfXRDpWi8OTEWnHljbNu9SW/fDMW5Ap+oB2jT 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAINohVKtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABQCoMHOEcMvx6BIBZ0giUBAQEDAQEBATc0CQIFBwQCAQgRBAEBAR4JBycLFAkIAgQOBQmHcgYNwHeOHAuBBQgrBwaDGoERA5gQgS+QXYFqgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,702,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="285033130" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2013 00:22:18 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAF0MInQ004873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:22:18 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.168]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:22:17 -0600 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Thread-Topic: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO36llWVU3mHovmE25ODDEakEb8polX+VggAB22IA= Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: <626B6895-FE20-4139-BC07-16DB4A4D9A8B@cisco.com> References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.164.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4454DF5E0019E845813CE61E900F3CF0@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Haberman Brian , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:22:24 -0000 On Nov 14, 2013, at 6:58 PM 11/14/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: > I mostly agree Brian; >=20 > It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured administrati= vely and could lead to an 04 interpretation. I consider a PAN ID to be equivalent to an address ... both are configured = administratively but are part of the=20 >=20 > A RPL domain (that is an 03) that may span multiple PAN IDs. Pascal - RPL domains are, in my opinion, completely unrelated to MPL scopes= . RPL is only mentioned obliquely, as an example of a protocol that accomm= odates the memory constraints in highly constrained devices. So, I don't t= hink there is any reason to say "A RPL domain (that is an 03)". > If PAN ID was 04 that would have been reverse nesting.=20 > The draft now clarifies that this is also an 03 but now we still have a p= otential conflict between a RPL domain and a PAN. >=20 > Would a RPL domain be constrained by the PAN ID?=20 No ... RPL domain is independent of MPL scope. As a practical matter, a "RPL domain" is a little tricky to define, and eve= n trickier to tie into a multicast scope. There is nothing in the multicas= t address or the MPL header to tie it to a DODAG or some other RPL domain i= dentifier. In a mesh where multiple DODAGS and RPL domains may be interlea= ved, there doesn't seem to be a way to identify a MPL scope. >=20 > In this case that would imply that all the LLN must always be a single PA= N and constrain the size of a subnet to 64K. I think you're confusing the use of "scop 3" for carrying multicast traffic= via MPL across a single mesh network and the use of, e.g., "scop 4" for th= e scope of, say, mDNS for DNS-SD across a federation of subnets. I won't attempt the ASCII art here ... but here's an example scenario as I = understand it: SEP2.0 DNS-SD/mDNS queries intended to span a federation of = subnets is sent to (working from memory) FC04::FB. When delivered to an LB= R at the border of a 6LoWPAN mesh, that query would be encapsulated in FC03= :: to carry it across the mesh. Similarly, a query from= a mesh node would have an inner header with dst FC04::FB and encapsulated = by the source with outer header dst FC03::; then the MP= L outer header would be taken off by the LBR and inner DNS-SD/mDNS query wo= uld be forwarded out any other interfaces based on the dst FC04::FB. > There is a lot behind the sentence "care must be taken in the definition = of those larger scopes to ensure that inclusion constraint is met." OK, but I don't think draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes contradicts RFC 4007= in any way. > Cheers; > Pascal - Ralph >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 > Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 07:23 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6= @ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-mult= icast-scopes-02.txt >=20 > Pascal, > Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is mandated by RFC 4007. > Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties: >=20 > o Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links. (Note that the global z= one has no boundary, and the boundary of an interface-local zone encloses j= ust a single interface.) >=20 > o Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., they can have no links o= r interfaces in common. >=20 > o A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within zon= es of larger scope. That is, a smaller scope zone cannot include more topo= logy than would any larger scope zone with which it shares any links or int= erfaces. >=20 > o Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing perspective; i.e.,= packets sent from one interface to any other in the same zone are never ro= uted outside the zone. Note, however, that if a zone contains a tunneled l= ink (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel link [8]), a lower layer network of the= tunnel can be located outside the zone without breaking the convexity prop= erty. >=20 >=20 > I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properties. >=20 > Regards, > Brian >=20 > On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> Hello Brian: >>=20 >> 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admi= n. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though= in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether = we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is= probably something we want to clarify. >>=20 >> Cheers >>=20 >> Pascal >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] >> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 >> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and;=20 >> ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for=20 >> draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt >>=20 >> Pascal, >>=20 >> On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes- >>> 0 >>> 2.txt >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Hello Ralph: >>>>=20 >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does n= ot seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was = -specific going -local. >>>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also= specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated ove= r an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>>>=20 >>>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems = that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to h= ave a sentence saying that? >>>>=20 >>=20 >> Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this docume= nt is changing that? >>=20 >> Regards, >> Brian >>=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Thu Nov 14 16:31:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D151A11E817E; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.982 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 I709WkIc8l8k; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4023411E8167; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g12so3210258oah.28 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gDB7wKz7XqnfEqYtzk4J+xvsun1WNFXDqUcz2TrcUuE=; b=d9Fo7OVXDrF+2Dt3QIzw2chOs8Ho7oa2fSV4ng3OyQoIs9V/8FcJCxXOcRt1BM18RL hLYjvOjXGTK3VRJ8tUWxgMN8ddaorz3oXWBRhx1jEAc7506rEHdA2x/zoim0IWKikUUA I6fU3gTrOjA8c/dg38VNafcFjBu4nYXgBpT8BtZKBHPGlQXznG28G7RVwg2seVWYtzay XsASZZpje0B/0nBvQtIJde8hD8SYYiDQLj9A1tZiPTDve2FrSUeE8hFEKtLGQDpfBy97 LBr/fx/+ws2xSK67JV3PNt7Zl8KtbGl99cd/Fy/pnr9q8HMre9QE8ZKUgVh5YAWIvcfZ OkCA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.47.228 with SMTP id g4mr4324925oen.10.1384475484771; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:24 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.73.6 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:31:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:31:24 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zeRzswWQdiKUsgm0qgZN5qCC0MQ Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fcf6785bd104eb2c517a Cc: Brian Haberman , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:31:27 -0000 --001a11c2fcf6785bd104eb2c517a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Pascal, On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > I mostly agree Brian; > > It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured > administratively and could lead to an 04 interpretation. > One could take that argument to the extreme and say that selecting SSID (802.11) or plugging into a wall socket (802.3) is an administrative act. Let's not be too literal and instead say that the "automatic" zone boundary definition applies to an existing LAN. If you think about a Link-Local zone, it is defined as a set of physically connected interfaces and the zone boundary is defined by a *lack* of forwarding (see [RFC4291] section 2.5.6). I think if there is a need for scope value 3 it is to provide classic Link-Local multicast behavior over a connected mesh. I think the definition should be independent of RPL and instead depend on some "L2 instance" definition. PAN ID works for 802.15.4 networks. A RPL domain (that is an 03) that may span multiple PAN IDs. draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02 defines a scop 3 zone boundary based on PAN ID. The latest version makes no mention at all of RPL. If PAN ID was 04 that would have been reverse nesting. > The draft now clarifies that this is also an 03 but now we still have a > potential conflict between a RPL domain and a PAN. > > Would a RPL domain be constrained by the PAN ID? > > In this case that would imply that all the LLN must always be a single PAN > and constrain the size of a subnet to 64K. > There is a lot behind the sentence "care must be taken in the definition > of those larger scopes to ensure that inclusion constraint is met." > > I think the understanding that was reached at dinner last week is that, under certain circumstances, policy can count as "administratively configured". Thus, if a RPL instance contained several PAN IDs then the former could be used as the basis of a scop 4 zone as long as if fully enclosed the PANs (scop 3 zones). OTOH, if a given PAN contains multiple RPL instances then the latter cannot be used to define a scop 4 zone boundary because that would violate the RFC 4007 constraints that Brian enumerated. HTH, -K- Cheers; > Pascal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] > Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 07:23 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; > ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > > Pascal, > Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is mandated by RFC 4007. > Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties: > > o Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links. (Note that the global > zone has no boundary, and the boundary of an interface-local zone encloses > just a single interface.) > > o Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., they can have no links or > interfaces in common. > > o A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within > zones of larger scope. That is, a smaller scope zone cannot include more > topology than would any larger scope zone with which it shares any links or > interfaces. > > o Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing perspective; i.e., > packets sent from one interface to any other in the same zone are never > routed outside the zone. Note, however, that if a zone contains a tunneled > link (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel link [8]), a lower layer network of > the tunnel can be located outside the zone without breaking the convexity > property. > > > I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properties. > > Regards, > Brian > > On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > Hello Brian: > > > > 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from > admin. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 > though in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. > Whether we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the > nesting is probably something we want to clarify. > > > > Cheers > > > > Pascal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] > > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; > > ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for > > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > > > > Pascal, > > > > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: > >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes- > >> 0 > >> 2.txt > >> > >> > >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" < > pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Ralph: > >>> > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does > not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was > -specific going -local. > >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also > specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over > an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. > >>> > >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems > that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to > have a sentence saying that? > >>> > > > > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this > document is changing that? > > > > Regards, > > Brian > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > --001a11c2fcf6785bd104eb2c517a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Pascal,

On Thu, Nov 1= 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>= wrote:
I mostly agree Br= ian;

It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured administra= tively and could lead to an 04 interpretation.

One could take that argument to the extreme and say that selecting = SSID (802.11) or plugging into a wall socket
(802.3) is an administrative act.=A0 Let's not be too litera= l and instead say that the "automatic" zone boundary
definition applies to an existing LAN.=A0 If you think about a Link-Local= zone, it is defined as a set of physically
connected interfaces and the zone boundary is defined by a *lack= * of forwarding (see [RFC4291] section 2.5.6).
I think if the= re is a need for scope value 3 it is to provide classic Link-Local multicas= t behavior over a connected
mesh.=A0 I think the definition should be independent of RPL and= instead depend on some "L2 instance" definition.
P= AN ID works for 802.15.4 networks.

A RPL domain (that is an 03) that may span multiple PAN IDs.
<= div>
draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02 defines a scop 3 zon= e boundary based on PAN ID.=A0 The latest version
makes no me= ntion at all of RPL.

If PAN ID was 04 that w= ould have been reverse nesting.
The draft now clarifies that this is also an 03 but now we still have a pot= ential conflict between a RPL domain and a PAN.

Would a RPL domain be constrained by the PAN ID?

In this case that would imply that all the LLN must always be a single PAN = and constrain the size of a subnet to 64K.
There is a lot behind the sentence "care must be taken in the definiti= on of those larger scopes to ensure that inclusion constraint is met."=

I think the understand= ing that was reached at dinner last week is that, under certain circumstanc= es, policy
can count as "administratively configured".=A0 Thus= , if a RPL instance contained several PAN IDs then the
former could be used as the basis of a scop 4 zone as long as if fully encl= osed the PANs (scop 3 zones).
OTOH, if a given PAN contains m= ultiple RPL instances then the latter cannot be used to define a scop 4
zone boundary because that would violate the RFC 4007 constraint= s that Brian enumerated.

HTH, -K-

Cheers;
Pascal


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:br= ian@innovationslab.net]
Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 = 07:23
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multic= ast-scopes-02.txt

Pascal,
=A0 =A0 Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is mandated by RFC 4007.
Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties:

o =A0Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links. =A0(Note that the global= zone has no boundary, and the boundary of an interface-local zone encloses= just a single interface.)

o =A0Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., they can have no links o= r interfaces in common.

o =A0A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely within zon= es of larger scope. =A0That is, a smaller scope zone cannot include more to= pology than would any larger scope zone with which it shares any links or i= nterfaces.

o =A0Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing perspect= ive; i.e., packets sent from one interface to any other in the same zone ar= e never routed outside the zone. =A0Note, however, that if a zone contains = a tunneled link (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel link [8]), a lower layer ne= twork of the tunnel can be located outside the zone without breaking the co= nvexity property.


I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properties.<= br>
Regards,
Brian

On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Brian:
>
> 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from ad= min. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 thou= gh in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whethe= r we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting = is probably something we want to clarify.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pascal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]
> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; > ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt
>
> Pascal,
>
> On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
>> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. =A0Check out
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft= -ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-
>> 0
>> 2.txt
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthube= rt)" <pthubert@cisco.com&= gt; wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Ralph:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man= -multicast-scopes-02 does not seem to contains the section you're i= nlining. The only diff I found was -specific going -local.
>>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the dr= aft also specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance feder= ated over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?.
>>>
>>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested= . Seems that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be g= ood to have a sentence saying that?
>>>
>
> Scopes are still nested. =A0See RFC 4007. =A0Are you saying that this = document is changing that?
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>

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

--001a11c2fcf6785bd104eb2c517a-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Nov 15 07:26:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D895521F9D46; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:26:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.369 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.630, BAYES_20=-0.74] 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 qSzCJIQ+ON6m; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:26:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC2121F9A43; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:26:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F58720049; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C36E063B88; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:26:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D8463AEF; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:26:13 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Kerry Lynn In-Reply-To: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 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 Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , Brian Haberman , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:26:18 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kerry Lynn wrote: > I mostly agree Brian; > It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured > administratively and could lead to an 04 interpretation. > One could take that argument to the extreme and say that selecting SS= ID > (802.11) or plugging into a wall socket > (802.3) is an administrative act.=C2=A0 Let's not be too literal and = instead say > that the "automatic" zone boundary > definition applies to an existing LAN.=C2=A0 If you think about a Lin= k-Local I offer this definition: an independant outside observer can determine the boundaries of scope 3 (2, and 1) can be observed without knowledge of the internal policies of a node. That's why we can say that it is automatically defined: there is no choice to make or policy to apply. This is obvious with a wired network: you just follow the wires. (The nodes/machines don't even need to be on.) For a wireless network, you need to have a radio to sniff with, but given that, you can mostly determine things. scope 4 is the first scope where a policy *may* come into play. The thing that broke up the log jam last week was the understanding that policies may be administratively defined such that the device can make a decision on it's own, but that this decision is not necessarily visible to = an external observer. (insert reference to Heisenburg uncertainty principle, and Einstein's hidden variables if you like) (I need to follow up to Kerry's reply from last week. I'm not sure that Pascal read it) =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUoY9FYqHRg3pndX9AQJd2AQAl1fYiWxsixRP26NnvPDK2QO7qxOr2sFJ NXYhCZwdksK45Pq9H5oh5Bue/E5tlmuqZfKgu9aGv4F1dpQVcxfICBpE9Eu28cha +nXRg1xB0AyHY0kZzutBwxRovh4SzE6H94f6BdhbQxbHFJKst4FXHjcXgGqbMghz cRXzxdAVvDw= =mvAI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Nov 15 10:23:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5932D11E821A; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:23:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.984 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.615, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 tZrOZs+iVrVQ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A83311E820D; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4855D20083; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 5672F63B88; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459AE63AEF; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:22:59 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" In-Reply-To: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 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 Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: Brian Haberman , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and , "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" , Tim Chown , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:23:02 -0000 --=-=-= Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > The LLN probably forms a single RPL Domain though we have not discussed > that yet. Discussing with Ralph, I understand that the RPL domain is 03 > and the whole multilink subnet is 04. No, that's not quite right. Scope-3 is each of the LLNs that have a single technology instance (e.g. 802.15.4 + PANID) Scope-4 is the whole multilink subnet as defined by the span of the collection of DODAGs (my suggestion) The RPL DODAG instances would likely span the backbone, and would be the basis for scope-4 configuration. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBUoZmg4qHRg3pndX9AQKgLAP/W6oWMA1AmEGTp4flzrMnltaQR5zJrm92 WeSBaXC+OvxeD5TLQROd7Oz99vJTOFPgydwhQYAqh9AqRRlFr3f/r9ZWFdD4TaVx ctPmT+GWoyfnszDF4LggIMJk0Y1uPBeRfSRa3l3pt5qe+B4e1180Ldo6n5X91or2 WIN8wNspZtc= =ZI7d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Mon Nov 18 03:48:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7DC11E8122 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:48:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 eia8vu9oAzhv for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:48:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail41.extendcp.co.uk (mail41.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.44.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E9911E80FB for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 03:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [94.116.173.197] (helo=[10.38.240.216]) by mail41.extendcp.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1ViNJK-00030v-24 for 6lo@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:48:10 +0000 Message-ID: <5289FE73.2060908@gridmerge.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:48:03 +0000 From: Robert Cragie Organization: Gridmerge Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 6lo@ietf.org References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <5284CE9E.4060001@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms060900090508020605010403" X-Authenticated-As: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:48:18 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms060900090508020605010403 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080104080901080901090307" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080104080901080901090307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Comments inline, bracketed by Robert On 15/11/2013 00:31, Kerry Lynn wrote: > Hi Pascal, > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)=20 > > wrote: > > I mostly agree Brian; > > It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured > administratively and could lead to an 04 interpretation. > > > One could take that argument to the extreme and say that selecting=20 > SSID (802.11) or plugging into a wall socket > (802.3) is an administrative act. Let's not be too literal and=20 > instead say that the "automatic" zone boundary > definition applies to an existing LAN. If you think about a=20 > Link-Local zone, it is defined as a set of physically > connected interfaces and the zone boundary is defined by a *lack* of=20 > forwarding (see [RFC4291] section 2.5.6). > I think if there is a need for scope value 3 it is to provide classic=20 > Link-Local multicast behavior over a connected > mesh. I think the definition should be independent of RPL and instead = > depend on some "L2 instance" definition. > PAN ID works for 802.15.4 networks. +1 - how PAN ID is assigned does not constitute "administratively=20 configured" as it is a layer 2 concept. > > A RPL domain (that is an 03) that may span multiple PAN IDs.=20 > > > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02 defines a scop 3 zone boundary=20 > based on PAN ID. The latest version > makes no mention at all of RPL. Agree that RPL should not be mentioned here. > > If PAN ID was 04 that would have been reverse nesting. > The draft now clarifies that this is also an 03 but now we still > have a potential conflict between a RPL domain and a PAN. > > Would a RPL domain be constrained by the PAN ID? > > In this case that would imply that all the LLN must always be a > single PAN and constrain the size of a subnet to 64K. > There is a lot behind the sentence "care must be taken in the > definition of those larger scopes to ensure that inclusion > constraint is met." > > I think the understanding that was reached at dinner last week is=20 > that, under certain circumstances, policy > can count as "administratively configured". Thus, if a RPL instance=20 > contained several PAN IDs then the > former could be used as the basis of a scop 4 zone as long as if fully = > enclosed the PANs (scop 3 zones). > OTOH, if a given PAN contains multiple RPL instances then the latter=20 > cannot be used to define a scop 4 > zone boundary because that would violate the RFC 4007 constraints that = > Brian enumerated. MPL is orthogonal to RPL DODAGs. If there is a requirement to reach = all nodes in a RPL DODAG which spans multiple 802.15.4 PANs, then that=20 would be administratively configured and scope 4. If a RPL DODAG is=20 wholly contained within the PAN ID then there would need to be some=20 additional discriminator to limit propagation among a node set smaller=20 than that of all nodes with the same PAN ID. In other words, it cannot=20 be limited by just scope, which is too coarse a measurement. MPL doesn't = cater for this as MPL Domains are defined as scope zones. > > HTH, -K- > > Cheers; > Pascal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net > ] > Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 07:23 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power > and; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > > Pascal, > Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is mandated by RFC 4007. > Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties: > > o Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links. (Note that the > global zone has no boundary, and the boundary of an > interface-local zone encloses just a single interface.) > > o Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., they can have no > links or interfaces in common. > > o A zone of a given scope (less than global) falls completely > within zones of larger scope. That is, a smaller scope zone > cannot include more topology than would any larger scope zone with > which it shares any links or interfaces. > > o Each zone is required to be "convex" from a routing > perspective; i.e., packets sent from one interface to any other in > the same zone are never routed outside the zone. Note, however, > that if a zone contains a tunneled link (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 > tunnel link [8]), a lower layer network of the tunnel can be > located outside the zone without breaking the convexity property. > > > I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properti= es. > > Regards, > Brian > > On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > Hello Brian: > > > > 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives > from admin. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is > contained in 04 though in the deployments I have in mind it would > certainly be the case. Whether we want to enforce or on the > contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is probably something > we want to clarify. > > > > Cheers > > > > Pascal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net > ] > > Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 > > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power a= nd; > > ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for > > draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt > > > > Pascal, > > > > On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: > >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scope= s- > >> 0 > >> 2.txt > >> > >> > >> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert > (pthubert)" > wrote:= > >> > >>> Hello Ralph: > >>> > >>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 > does not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only > diff I found was -specific going -local. > >>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the > draft also specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same > instance federated over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in > an 04 ?. > >>> > >>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are > nested. Seems that we are going away from that assumption and > maybe it would be good to have a sentence saying that? > >>> > > > > Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that > this document is changing that? > > > > Regards, > > Brian > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------= - > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6= > -------------------------------------------------------------------= - > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo --------------080104080901080901090307 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Comments inline, bracketed by <RCC></RCC>

Robert

On 15/11/2013 00:31, Kerry Lynn wrote:=
Hi Pascal,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthube= rt@cisco.com> wrote:
I mostly agree Brian;

It's a bit touchy because in 802.15.4 a PAN ID is configured administratively and could lead to an 04 interpretation.

One could take that argument to the extreme and say that selecting SSID (802.11) or plugging into a wall socket
(802.3) is an administrative act.  Let's not be too= literal and instead say that the "automatic" zone boundary<= br>
definition applies to an existing LAN.  If you thin= k about a Link-Local zone, it is defined as a set of physically
connected interfaces and the zone boundary is defined by a *lack* of forwarding (see [RFC4291] section 2.5.6).
I think if there is a need for scope value 3 it is to provide classic Link-Local multicast behavior over a connected
mesh.  I think the definition should be independent= of RPL and instead depend on some "L2 instance" definition.
PAN ID works for 802.15.4 networks.
<RCC>+1 - how PAN ID is assigned does not constitute "administratively configured" as it is a layer 2 concept.</RCC>=

A RPL domain (that is an 03) that may span multiple PAN IDs.

draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02 defines a scop 3 zone boundary based on PAN ID.  The latest version
=
makes no mention at all of RPL.
<RCC>Agree that RPL should not be mentioned here.</RCC>

If PAN ID was 04 that would have been reverse nesting.
The draft now clarifies that this is also an 03 but now we still have a potential conflict between a RPL domain and a PAN.

Would a RPL domain be constrained by the PAN ID?

In this case that would imply that all the LLN must always be a single PAN and constrain the size of a subnet to 64K.<= br> There is a lot behind the sentence "care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes to ensure that inclusion constraint is met."

I think the understanding that was reached at dinner last week is that, under certain circumstances, policy
can count as "administratively configured".  Thus, if = a RPL instance contained several PAN IDs then the
former could be used as the basis of a scop 4 zone as long as if fully enclosed the PANs (scop 3 zones).
OTOH, if a given PAN contains multiple RPL instances then the latter cannot be used to define a scop 4
zone boundary because that would violate the RFC 4007 constraints that Brian enumerated.
<RCC>MPL is orthogonal to RPL DODAGs. If there is a requirement to reach all nodes in a RPL DODAG which spans multiple 802.15.4 PANs, then that would be administratively configured and scope 4. If a RPL DODAG is wholly contained within the PAN ID then there would need to be some additional discriminator to limit propagation among a node set smaller than that of all nodes with the same PAN ID. In other words, it cannot be limited by just scope, which is too coarse a measurement. MPL doesn't cater for this as MPL Domains are defined as scope zones.</RCC>

HTH, -K-

Cheers;
Pascal


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovati= onslab.net]
Sent: jeudi 14 novembre 2013 07:23
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt

Pascal,
    Scope 3 being contained within scope4 is = mandated by RFC 4007.
Specifically, RFC 4007 describes the following properties:

o  Zone boundaries cut through nodes, not links.  (Note that the global zone has no boundary, and t= he boundary of an interface-local zone encloses just a single interface.)

o  Zones of the same scope cannot overlap; i.e., t= hey can have no links or interfaces in common.

o  A zone of a given scope (less than global) fall= s completely within zones of larger scope.  That is,= a smaller scope zone cannot include more topology than would any larger scope zone with which it shares any links or interfaces.

o  Each zone is required to be "convex" from a rou= ting perspective; i.e., packets sent from one interface to any other in the same zone are never routed outside the zone.  Note, however, that if a zone contains = a tunneled link (e.g., an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel link [8]), a lower layer network of the tunnel can be located outside the zone without breaking the convexity property.


I don't see anything in this draft that would change those properties.

Regards,
Brian

On 11/14/13 12:51 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:<= br> > Hello Brian:
>
> 03 seems to derive from autonomic behavior, whereas 04 derives from admin. I do not see there a direct indication that 03 is contained in 04 though in the deployments I have in mind it would certainly be the case. Whether we want to enforce or on the contrary do not want to enforce the nesting is probably something we want to clarify.
>
> Cheers
>
> Pascal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innova= tionslab.net]
> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and;
> ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt
>
> Pascal,
>
> On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >> The document has been accepted as a WG work item.  Check out
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts= /draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-
>> 0
>> 2.txt
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com= > wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Ralph:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dr= oms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was -specific going -local.
>>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft also specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated over an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?.<= br> >>>
>>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to have a sentence saying that?
>>>
>
> Scopes are still nested.  See RFC 4007.  = ;Are you saying that this document is changing that?
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>

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



_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ie=
tf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

--------------080104080901080901090307-- --------------ms060900090508020605010403 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIILUDCC BRowggQCoAMCAQICEG0Z6qcZT2ozIuYiMnqqcd4wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwga4xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJVVDEXMBUGA1UEBxMOU2FsdCBMYWtlIENpdHkxHjAcBgNVBAoT FVRoZSBVU0VSVFJVU1QgTmV0d29yazEhMB8GA1UECxMYaHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tMTYwNAYDVQQDEy1VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg RW1haWwwHhcNMTEwNDI4MDAwMDAwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UE ChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoC ggEBAJKEhFtLV5jUXi+LpOFAyKNTWF9mZfEyTvefMn1V0HhMVbdClOD5J3EHxcZppLkyxPFA GpDMJ1Zifxe1cWmu5SAb5MtjXmDKokH2auGj/7jfH0htZUOMKi4rYzh337EXrMLaggLW1DJq 1GdvIBOPXDX65VSAr9hxCh03CgJQU2yVHakQFLSZlVkSMf8JotJM3FLb3uJAAVtIaN3FSrTg 7SQfOq9xXwfjrL8UO7AlcWg99A/WF1hGFYE8aIuLgw9teiFX5jSw2zJ+40rhpVJyZCaRTqWS D//gsWD9Gm9oUZljjRqLpcxCm5t9ImPTqaD8zp6Q30QZ9FxbNboW86eb/8ECAwEAAaOCAUsw ggFHMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR6E04AdFvG eGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwEgYDVR0TAQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADARBgNV HSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwWAYDVR0fBFEwTzBNoEugSYZHaHR0cDovL2NybC51c2VydHJ1c3Qu Y29tL1VUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb25hbmRFbWFpbC5jcmwwdAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEaDBmMD0GCCsGAQUFBzAChjFodHRwOi8vY3J0LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVRO QWRkVHJ1c3RDbGllbnRfQ0EuY3J0MCUGCCsGAQUFBzABhhlodHRwOi8vb2NzcC51c2VydHJ1 c3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCF1r54V1VtM39EUv5C1QaoAQOAivsNsv1Kv/av QUn1G1rF0q0bc24+6SZ85kyYwTAo38v7QjyhJT4KddbQPTmGZtGhm7VNm2+vKGwdr+XqdFqo 2rHA8XV6L566k3nK/uKRHlZ0sviN0+BDchvtj/1gOSBH+4uvOmVIPJg9pSW/ve9g4EnlFsjr P0OD8ODuDcHTzTNfm9C9YGqzO/761Mk6PB/tm/+bSTO+Qik5g+4zaS6CnUVNqGnagBsePdIa XXxHmaWbCG0SmYbWXVcHG6cwvktJRLiQfsrReTjrtDP6oDpdJlieYVUYtCHVmdXgQ0BCML7q peeU0rD+83X5f27nMIIGLjCCBRagAwIBAgIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQUFADCBkzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4G A1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENP TU9ETyBDbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMTA5 MDIwMDAwMDBaFw0xNDA5MDEyMzU5NTlaMIIBNzELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxEDAOBgNVBBETB1dG NCA0V0ExFzAVBgNVBAgTDldlc3QgWW9ya3NoaXJlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlXYWtlZmllbGQxFDAS BgNVBAkTC0dyYW5nZSBNb29yMR8wHQYDVQQJExY4OSBHcmVlbmZpZWxkIENyZXNjZW50MRcw FQYDVQQKEw5HcmlkbWVyZ2UgTHRkLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrSXNzdWVkIHRocm91Z2ggR3JpZG1l cmdlIEx0ZC4gRS1QS0kgTWFuYWdlcjEfMB0GA1UECxMWQ29ycG9yYXRlIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFp bDEWMBQGA1UEAxMNUm9iZXJ0IENyYWdpZTEqMCgGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYbcm9iZXJ0LmNyYWdp ZUBncmlkbWVyZ2UuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArcThqvLe WU1Q1ZJmnb+2UQSwOQKWok3A1Mwk582AdvwaAQyBFliPyJ0kXJqtwNBoZvk+3WJr0QA5ZRr+ J0x3sXVpcxadojP2HNzy1gsgDtIGG8ltoU4vmX1A8BTlOIUT+Pg8p/bSruxV0vz0CR8ho2hs R0Zi5vU+rQKNmbgufbkWhlQnMEYjknemscLQfw1YZz90ta67doNDujFy6+X6I06HpjudgMYx 8bdsNS5xVFFwuBA1eqNQra+xLzhCOeX9PPB/zK68qdNhrni3WPYG9EhSt4Dzk+xIz9hj7wrU ZIVXDTPsY8qbUSBVpwmzI5lCHPgzurH1OK7WwgpDSsl5pwIDAQABo4IB1TCCAdEwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswHQYDVR0OBBYEFBCOXNH+lDm8U9gy3b3bRvrx vKgrMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwME BggrBgEFBQcDAjBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEDBTArMCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1o dHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEygSqBIhkZodHRwOi8v Y3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZFNlY3VyZUVt YWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29t b2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxDQS5j cnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAmBgNVHREEHzAdgRty b2JlcnQuY3JhZ2llQGdyaWRtZXJnZS5jb20wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAD6b/O0LkPav kR4Znoqxg0Ad7M3duDm4uzfrlX4ecgq56Ccdwd+3Tayz7Ewej30woVMmTKkA/NKRaCd0wVM9 8seF/oZjXKO7o1SH27igRnGSWjCoWXsdwJGfZbYnvcIIhhsxJoCPNbeSR7C0PAFDKsP3xrJy MHMljIJsoRbZu/fnYNyFWh9OXf7fYJOGmKDKAhSabUGfhY7umvU9d/YTqo02Q6YzC7d4zPNG 1a75AuHSEchf6GdKqycG38I5y9jlDaYfXspoS3PlTNCIeZONbOSMZgftnNEVKq+SWytFqyG/ 8+dwpm/a12KMex5J8iHwaUKj++2O2rAFNjDDqXpeEYoxggQZMIIEFQIBATCBqDCBkzELMAkG A1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9y ZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGllbnQg QXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQQIQXDFQ28QtqMuYch5f2nTvZjAJ BgUrDgMCGgUAoIICRTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEP Fw0xMzExMTgxMTQ4MDNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQo4tB/EUiUh+BHs9Bde3X7CSNUhDBs BgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xXzBdMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEAQIwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw DgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MIG5BgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgaswgagwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVy IE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1p dGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUg RW1haWwgQ0ECEFwxUNvELajLmHIeX9p072YwgbsGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYGroIGoMIGTMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxm b3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVu dCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhBcMVDbxC2oy5hyHl/adO9m MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAEsA2ykCuQQiQB5p6j8S6py9O7Ut4TmAxLgFATzqQZeoWX8Q JQlCeahbwHJNa8dVSs3u23dC8BbW0dDjRoQKLMBbALJitl1jSIBLSrceBdjrtX+lVAwnwOhQ ngWtmYpsFC/nl6pQ3PSYdf6wXEoZbChu4zfwJlj06p68MLhB6tsrviTzOv3W64m675CaqsF7 4QSwICKcweHFSml5k/jfhvXx0d36QHxvoJZNzAoyHMkY8wi+nt1u8N8++OCqaE+tuiR1YJGy LfKWYspFZ59Cto3SOV1eKTpToWHrHdIcDKja3tAG6irP4nTLTIM8bdoRE4aFwTbCx8yVyG4o FiairUEAAAAAAAA= --------------ms060900090508020605010403-- From rdroms@cisco.com Mon Nov 18 08:11:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0C711E8191; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:11:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 L7txC7MpFZ93; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:11:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7749711E81CE; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:06:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3659; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384790812; x=1386000412; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=XFsE9EDZzqZ3nLbbTRnE4Rz7OkzMj0TVGA5WYxP5u/M=; b=HCo9tDPG50wtzyVuAt1msBgMeB1CCizL0PYnwVgVGCdNP+Ok9amtRsYm COHkwoFX4zHuRj6uYTdgiYh9ImJgTdoIIzAiDTe5wK27RId5ObRWHbysg 9uYEsFyARB0cJYv3zh2c6nQqIepPN7iSixnq0boXVBgF+gjxDacq4+Zhy U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAO86ilKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U782gRsWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQE3NAkCBQcEAgEIEQQBAQEeCQcnCxQJCAIEDgUJh3IGDcI2F44xgQUzBwaDGoERA5gQgS+QXoFqgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,724,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="359697" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2013 16:06:45 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAIG6iDX020181 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:06:44 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.168]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:06:44 -0600 From: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks Thread-Topic: [Roll] [6lo] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHO5HgsQxeYcn6OqEmLEG/VL5yhqQ== Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:06:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131112131626.28795.73885.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <81B53491-ABF4-4E98-B249-9CC652899B4C@cisco.com> <9683EB80-69F2-42CC-BD89-1A0CC6398700@cisco.com> <52837CE4.60304@innovationslab.net> <1D6AAC82-2828-402C-BE2B-9A9FF019F397@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <37635E59-0FE8-4EBA-B5C1-EFBA1DA3C6CD@ecs.soton.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.69.198] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9FEBB60F854DB24D90BC42ABA28F2799@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Haberman Brian , "ipv6@ietf.org IPv6 List" , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [6lo] [Roll] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-02.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:11:24 -0000 On Nov 16, 2013, at 6:46 AM 11/16/13, Tim Chown wrote= : > Hi, >=20 > On 15 Nov 2013, at 00:12, Samita Chakrabarti wrote: >=20 >> Hi Tim, >>=20 >>> Are there use cases documented somewhere in a 6lo or 6lo-related draft? >>=20 >>> I'm interested as we're updating the homenet text about multicast scope= s. We have agreed some text in principle with Brian for that, but it's int= eresting because we may, indeed are likely to, have 6lo networks within fut= ure IPv6 home networks. >>=20 >> [SC>] AFAIK, 6lo/6lowpan basic documents do not discuss the multicast s= copes in details.=20 >> [SC>] It'll be certainly helpful to document the scopes of 6lo within th= e scope of home networks or equivalent. >> In addition I think, it'd be really helpful for implementers if we provi= de some examples of scopes of different protocols in the 6man-multicast-sco= pes doc along with the pointer to RFC 4007. >=20 > That would be excellent. A separate document targeted at homenet WG show= ing multicast scenarios might be nice, but perhaps overkill. Samita - I don't understand what you're suggesting as "scopes of different = protocols in the 6man-multicast-scopes". Do you mean examples of the defin= ition of scope 3 for various L2 technologies? - Ralph >=20 > Tim >=20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >> -Samita >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 >>> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2013 07:22 >>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >>> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Routing Lossy networks Over Low power and; ip= v6@ietf.org IPv6 List; 6lo@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [6lo] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-mu= lticast-scopes-02.txt >>>=20 >>> Pascal, >>>=20 >>> On 11/12/13 5:04 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>>> The document has been accepted as a WG work item. Check out=20 >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-0 >>>> 2.txt >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 5:00 PM 11/12/13, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Hello Ralph: >>>>>=20 >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes-02 does = not seem to contains the section you're inlining. The only diff I found was= -specific going -local. >>>>> As we are at it, would we be ahead of ourselves if that the draft als= o specifies that a collection of RPL DODAGs of a same instance federated ov= er an isolated backbone (such as a VLAN) in an 04 ?. >>>>>=20 >>>>> If I may add, there is kind of an habit that scopes are nested. Seems= that we are going away from that assumption and maybe it would be good to = have a sentence saying that? >>>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Scopes are still nested. See RFC 4007. Are you saying that this docum= ent is changing that? >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Brian >>>=20 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>=20 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > Roll@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Nov 21 11:07:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A511AE24D for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 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] 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 bmvk-Yoh76As for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x22c.google.com (mail-vc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9301AE0E7 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hz11so59765vcb.17 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=fysGtGh7IfhWw8Hu3hJHOI7qshIpEZGhdqOMbhr8Cco=; b=OwWQ99CbPBMby4cEQ8F0UUQoYgebSPUtlQWT4pDEm2AmkVJvILgscSOAqVboqpaCev ByMVssksyx+XtoLR2LheybroI2frnNP3HOji+gbF7JY3vJ2uPh5YVCuAHVlhaWNff03T lMqSQN1ag2dCVkU5DtoOrew0fu2QCggm+3w+U= 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:content-type; bh=fysGtGh7IfhWw8Hu3hJHOI7qshIpEZGhdqOMbhr8Cco=; b=bMnikplj39hXOkq6SYAs7RxAn1vilnhONeyzSa9eku2yWv+lZmlgjR9SXfEsInGg7N G18oZvHxqPJ5+66whydqncmJD08ziiNaXq82gja0KmS/Ec4ePm+t+xb4fWW0GLVWE4+f B4PcrlaM8QkAon9VyyFLFdTHQGcqq3GwAZ2nWSmxElqSpAIuYugXdYM0AC6eiyXaeGLB 2Sz3Djz+vyUkeMj4aTd7i17ToKs+6wgRc2I4BbKsgGYsOXhqL+hLdmwrkli3Dikrypjb VYPvgFZ+2+DKto1duMUCm/cZdmjI3dAsHYFrBFLT2hsMqp08SDy03ihhc97Hs5VMhSV3 /iUA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxBPKLy/Nel8qpKDgrp1VF2TipGpaqIoYwFpm40wX4rzVO2EWBZcwy3nKVhIyOORXkQZzS MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.186.228 with SMTP id fn4mr2122578vdc.34.1385060859233; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:07:39 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54858f681df7804ebb49ca9 Subject: Re: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-ietf-6man-6lobac X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:07:54 -0000 --bcaec54858f681df7804ebb49ca9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There have been no objections to the WG adoption of this document. Authors, please submit the draft as draft-ietf-6lo-*. Best regards Ulrich On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac > should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the > adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. > > Thanks > Ulrich > --bcaec54858f681df7804ebb49ca9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There have been no objections to the WG adoption of t= his document. Authors, please submit the draft as draft-ietf-6lo-*.

=
Best regards
Ulrich


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Ulrich Herb= erg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:
The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac
should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the
adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20.

Thanks
Ulrich

--bcaec54858f681df7804ebb49ca9-- From ulrich@herberg.name Thu Nov 21 11:08:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD861AE172 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 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] 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 UzyixTYh2y6i for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x22c.google.com (mail-vc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41BD1AE0E7 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hz11so60114vcb.17 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=qEKQre1ptiWsV2sc4cANk4n0VG6SW8dz7yyYZP/NN30=; b=DjAYgsY8oXfXJvXADarLuqjn4Xcb6yykeKP4AQepkY5PKJ5sgVvhMj+fP8hwUZgwCd epfZwh7Wou9MBRnehXQ8TjkHV+QDuJ3OsJFAScoSsDpRTjOi7FTzo6sqEkI2S9thR2TD //0hANcAvdT6ni9mk2/RI+i/c385XHxtFjwck= 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:content-type; bh=qEKQre1ptiWsV2sc4cANk4n0VG6SW8dz7yyYZP/NN30=; b=DPPAGdGQXUakwy5i93V4EI6ncV59BJx3J+D6GawtAmqxVSlr4D9VnZwnlQfNEXo1I+ 6QIEaqVz0FQ4ZMkIpbG4vaCwyAWEaEdTyEa4eIqM6cvU5KfhhNzIeK+quqYB4uWs7bP7 f0PieUxWfsmBkv7hc5YX1MmrfkhLwLGjYgfe0m8aE+eqXjN2nBY074Irjy7P9Qb7ULvZ T9lZY4XEdMSTdl52Mpcy1dbr9BPJC+OPqoF0i2jVPIxvEcacFlycrx3M8OCmN23w3di+ YewIoNmrcXHtkIvmT8BOM8owDmcBupjlkKYZVFw50OuEYZXClySplrNigksEvGAQM0Da BXVw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmkwBOULn9NPE3O08At1Zz+7uqBSGIOsrf8FG5k/LvcjfFgMBMvHiWLiWXc+bJXjoBwqBKl MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.160.130 with SMTP id xk2mr6035363vdb.24.1385060881046; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:08:01 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160caaecedc1f04ebb49d79 Subject: Re: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:08:09 -0000 --089e0160caaecedc1f04ebb49d79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There have been no objections to the WG adoption of this document. Authors, please submit the draft as draft-ietf-6lo-*. Best regards Ulrich On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz > should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the > adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. > > Thanks > Ulrich > --089e0160caaecedc1f04ebb49d79 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There have been no objections to the WG adoption of t= his document. Authors, please submit the draft as draft-ietf-6lo-*.

=
Best regards
Ulrich


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name= > wrote:
The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-brandt-6man-lowpanz
should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the
adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20.

Thanks
Ulrich

--089e0160caaecedc1f04ebb49d79-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Mon Nov 25 06:39:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05581ADDD3 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:39:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.027 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 OJvYOCmQ-cks for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:39:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-x232.google.com (mail-oa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C7E1AD8DC for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:39:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n16so4356742oag.23 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:39:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eCEZWhCtGBNsjO/FxWpjvhWYH5vn2/Olww4S/3Mohdc=; b=tE7aUfGvY1ju0ykS+718z04Oeu7T7CzbIxjxjeFAAKDHAPOoU6j29Yjuu+djdrkrcX yYvjds3FY1juibgBFclgmcGCTeygFYaxbpwK25XdOd8S9zXUyBAfMs/ynwTnvz7FgWSw bbsEsemn9HQI1X22sMK45YxlxKOOuLu0R5c9g0dTgalKfbUVEyG1DwNHIGYJW4xL1BKv J2cCeg0G95xSGC5k5NYGtUH72XmEjXTsCoObXukU3bBROgZezvTvlKBAfr8S1MBL+sub 9obkM0gP/HHSWYc4P21cRcto4bC5qs/UV0xR0JYgcvtHPrl+Fv08Cihm6LmRjCTqhQ7P 103g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.142.229 with SMTP id rz5mr25190341obb.12.1385390362233; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:39:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.73.6 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:39:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:39:22 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Dkhb-fLgCruSRPU23XbRaXRBUZ8 Message-ID: From: Kerry Lynn To: Ulrich Herberg , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c362e66a906104ec0154d1 Cc: "Donaldson, Stuart \(WA26\)" , Carl Neilson , Jerry Martocci Subject: Re: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-ietf-6man-6lobac X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:39:23 -0000 --001a11c362e66a906104ec0154d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > There have been no objections to the WG adoption of this document. > Authors, please submit the draft as draft-ietf-6lo-*. > > Ulrich et al. The underlying MS/TP MAC proposal is in a bit of flux right now as we are actively resolving public comments. I expect it to stabilize in the next two weeks and then I'll submit an update to the draft. Regards, -K- Best regards > Ulrich > > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > >> The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac >> should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the >> adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20. >> >> Thanks >> Ulrich >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --001a11c362e66a906104ec0154d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ulrich Herberg <ulric= h@herberg.name> wrote:
The= re have been no objections to the WG adoption of this document. Authors, pl= ease submit the draft as draft-ietf-6lo-*.

Ulrich et al.
=A0
The un= derlying MS/TP MAC proposal is in a bit of flux right now as we are
acti= vely resolving public comments.=A0 I expect it to stabilize in the next two=
weeks and then I'll submit an update to the draft.

R= egards, -K-

Best regards
Ulrich




On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Ulrich Herb= erg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:
The feeling in the room yesterday was that draft-ietf-6man-6lobac
should be adopted as WG document. If there are objections to the
adoption, please send them to the mailing list until November 20.

Thanks
Ulrich


_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
=A0
<= /div> --001a11c362e66a906104ec0154d1-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Nov 25 08:13:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A441ADF92; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:13:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 jQ5TlKuVkW8y; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:13:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE921ADF59; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:13:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.83.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20131125161358.14041.70490.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:13:58 -0800 Cc: 6lo@ietf.org Subject: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-00.txt X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:14:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constraine= d Nodes Working Group of the IETF. Title : Transmission of IPv6 packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks Author(s) : Anders Brandt Jakob Buron Filename : draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2013-11-25 Abstract: This document describes the frame format for transmission of IPv6 packets and a method of forming IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6 addresses on ITU-T G.9959 networks. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ulrich@herberg.name Mon Nov 25 14:04:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F981AE055 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 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] 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 QWS8dviiTFZB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-x232.google.com (mail-vc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825EF1AE04E for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lh4so3178576vcb.23 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=TUUDFp8TY3X84XpToSUZrIYAx1y6TefLFctoLW24QTc=; b=X0s/5G6w9YBKqE6odw6Mwy7zWYZFE3qzh0cCV3tjKvU5+Xl0CXLxanwP12QmSNrQvV 2CbmA0VIZReMCO0G+1s0cyz2kMDL/nNE5UHZlf3U/vepI6jkPv7CFH3NflQpaVEHxgHG BF2f92oDe1oXSQcbw7kPmvurBzIEnOzEOopW0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=TUUDFp8TY3X84XpToSUZrIYAx1y6TefLFctoLW24QTc=; b=Nm7kQHC4LDl3OGt2CTv4aeVaP+bVy4PTsgeEExGO7+cqF0zo7ENzClwemt+FNe38FS pb5uTkFE+jOYaFyrr+o52VhUBNIOBKWwn+Jk+3n2J4YdUbaNvUVQ8VqOCB/zogen6nV1 kSBdvLUK62d7138JWgmUaSt5LWLFD359FTIeIiSBMD1jC680LTrvj/peL0C82UJAhiLc bFV1EDaSo74aF2zEiKJLX8Pxcy1TPgTHxn5hmByAcEERLfmRt25dKCgmZaG8cQdS1JuC n78CsFkEDRqWtV3z8+PBUFZwG3GxgmYrXVxMURgF1i1pcS7KO2eyVKeh3cfX/XkIrBW+ 8PYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0EZOVLRqJX8Y+0zlNQNsJCMWAIVJ1Ehn0gV1ghvW5EFQHw40H+s3Iqq73gUZbkvW/ZYwR MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.221.18.70 with SMTP id qf6mr144660vcb.37.1385417063256; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.253.68 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:04:23 -0800 Message-ID: From: Ulrich Herberg To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, Juergen Schoenwaelder Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11333c22ec1a0e04ec078b12 Subject: [6lo] WG adoption of draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib-01 X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:04:25 -0000 --001a11333c22ec1a0e04ec078b12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, J=FCrgen has submitted a new revision of draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib-01. Please send any objections to WG adoption as reply to this email until COB of 12/13/2013 (a bit more time than two weeks considering the upcoming Thanksgiving break.). Best regards Ulrich --001a11333c22ec1a0e04ec078b12 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

J=FCrgen has submitted a new re= vision of draft-schoenw-6lo-lowpan-mib-01. Please send any objections to WG= adoption as reply to this email until COB of 12/13/2013 (a bit more time t= han two weeks considering the upcoming Thanksgiving break.).

Best regards
Ulrich
--001a11333c22ec1a0e04ec078b12--