Hi Gabriel, Thanks for the follow-up.
Yes, we would like to request some time for Montreal. Our aim would be explaining the following: - The updates in -03 (which we plan to publish before the cut-off date), including text on network formation/initialization. - Related with the updates, we have teamed up with Michael Spörk and his colleagues, from Graz University of Technology, who are the authors of the BLEach implementation of RFC 7668 [1]. We are already running our own local copy (at UPC) of a BLEach scenario, which we plan to use as the basis to implement draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh. - Since in the past there have been questions on the Bluetooth SIG proposal for BLE mesh networking, it might be good to show one slide on the topic, now that the "Bluetooth mesh" specification (from Bluetooth SIG) is publicly available, explaining the differences with RFC 7668 and draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh. I guess a 10-min slot should work, but a shorter slot would be fine if needed to accommodate other slot requests. Please let us know if you have any comments. Thanks! Carles [1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Zimmerling/publication/319315009_BLEach_Exploiting_the_Full_Potential_of_IPv6_over_BLE_in_Constrained_Embedded_IoT_Devices/links/59dc8148458515e9ab4c6737/BLEach-Exploiting-the-Full-Potential-of-IPv6-over-BLE-in-Constrained-Embedded-IoT-Devices.pdf > HI Carles, > > Below, you indicate you might have some updates for Montreal. > > Would you like some time during the meeting to discuss any progress you > may have had on the implementation and validation of the spec? Not ready > yet? > > Thanks, > > Gabriel > > From: 6lo <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Samita Chakrabarti > Sent: 16 March, 2018 05:16 > To: Carles Gomez Montenegro <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; lo <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [6lo] Status of draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-02 > > Thank you Carles for the implementation update of BLEmesh.. > Great work in finding out and sharing the ble existing base > implementations pros and cons. That is helpful for 6lo wg and it is good > to know that Contiki now supports RFC 7668. > -Samita > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2018 4:38 AM, "Carles Gomez Montenegro" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear WG, > > We would like to provide a short report on the status and our activities > related with draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-02. > > As you may recall, while we believe the document to be ready, we wanted > to > implement it before proceeding further. > > We had planned to implement the draft based on Raspberry Pi devices and > BlueZ. We actually enabled an RFC 7668 scenario with one device as a > master (or a 6LBR), another one as a slave (or a 6LN), and even > IPv6-based > communication between the 6LN and a non-BLE interface of the 6LBR was > working well. > > However, when we tried to increase the number of 6LNs per 6LBR, we > encountered the issue that communication between the 6LBR and the already > existing 6LN stopped working. > > It appears that several concurrent BLE connections are not handled > correctly with BlueZ. This is a problem other people have found, and as > per the BlueZ mailing list, there is not a currently known solution. > > Fortunately, we have found another basis for our implementation. > Recently, > the BLEach open implementation of RFC 7668 (based on Contiki and CC2650 > devices) was released > (http://spoerk.github.io/contiki<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fspoerk.github.io%2Fcontiki&data=04%7C01%7CGabriel.Montenegro%40microsoft.com%7Cb1ab5d2296594d8b0f2108d58b37a9d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636567993550354044%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=gg8G01srzJ3e6X1IbLwUQ2mFcqhPq9Wm9FUTBry8XFw%3D&reserved=0>). > It is promising, > as in fact results are shown by BLEeach authors on a scenario with one > 6LBR and several 6LNs. We are currently in the process of enabling the > RFC > 7668 > scenario based on this platform, and then we plan to modify/extend the > code in order to implement our draft. > > Our plan is to have a first prototype implementation by IETF 102 > (Montreal), and request to give a report in the 6Lo session of that > meeting. > > Meanwhile, please let us know whether you have any comments on the draft. > And, of course, any feedback from implementation experience will be very > much appreciated! > > (Note: when the I-D submission tool reopens, we will upload a new version > of the draft as "a refresher".) > > Thanks! > > Carles, Mahdi, Teemu > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6lo&data=04%7C01%7CGabriel.Montenegro%40microsoft.com%7Cb1ab5d2296594d8b0f2108d58b37a9d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636567993550354044%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=fVu7RwdS7gDMMvY5N0iLrwe201uqttE58Gw3eHrKqhE%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
