Hi Haoyu, Consider if you have multi tenant network, then will your scheme work?
If yes then how can node A from Service Provider-A can communicate with node B from Service Provider-B and both are under the same border router or edge node? Regards, Adnan Rashid On Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 20:10 Haoyu Song <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Uma, those are really great use cases. I would like to include them > in the new revisions. My feeling is that a universal scheme like this can > benefit many applications/networks (some yet to be explored) and won’t > introduce unnecessary conflicts and burdens to well-developed HC techniques > for 6loWPAN and LPWAN. > > We look forward to collaborations and suggestions on where we should land > this work. Please let me know if you are interested. > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > *From:* Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2021 9:08 AM > *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Kerry Lynn <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Alexander Pelov < > [email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses > > > > > > Great discussion and inputs from many header compression experts. > > > > >So maybe for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical > requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such > context-less scheme more compelling. > > > > > > I can with certainty give 2 such examples where I was involved multiple > times w.r.t IPv6 usage: > > > > 1. A subset of mIOT UEs (this is a huge swath of UEs we are talking about) > which needs low latency, high bandwidth and is sensitive to battery power. > For example, a V2X UE, cares for low latency and high bandwidth *but is > not *necessarily constrained by low battery power (though saving is > always good). However, an AR/VR UE (advanced handset or 5G enabled headset) > cares for all 3 (high BW, low latency and battery). > > > > 2. Another one is with LEO satellite constellations and communication > from the end points. Here also only a subset of use cases/devices cares for > all 3. > > > > regards! > > -- > > Uma C. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:26 PM Haoyu Song <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kerry and Alexander, > > > > Thank you very much for the information. It seems the existing standards > serve their purpose well. But Kerry did mention an interesting point: both > these networks have low data rate and are insensitive to latency. So maybe > for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical > requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such > context-less scheme more compelling. This is very helpful discussion. > Thanks a lot! > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > *From:* Kerry Lynn <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2021 9:04 AM > *To:* Haoyu Song <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Alexander Pelov <[email protected]>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Haoyu Song <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > > > Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth > efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost > of storage and processing in wireless. It would be great if we could find > some quantitative research results. Is there any such info available? It’s > also good to know that SCHC already supports direct device communications. > How about 6loWPAN? Same? > > > > It is important to note that there are several 6lo data links that employ > RFC6282 > > header compression including RFC8163, which is wired. (Indeed, I believe > 6282 > > is a common denominator of published 6lo RFCs.) So, from my perspective, > I'd > > like your proposal to show why RFC6282 _won't_ work for your application. > > > > Re: quantitative research results for the comparative energy costs of > different > > 6lo design tradeoffs, I believe these studies do exist and folks in t2trg > might be > > able to point you to specific papers. Most (all?) 6lo data links are > characterized > > by low data rates, so it's important to consider the latency win of IPv6 > header > > compression as an additional consideration. > > > > Regards, Kerry > > > > <snip> > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fint-area&data=04%7C01%7Chaoyu.song%40futurewei.com%7C5d70d3eb6e004615e20408d9a535d7df%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637722472949487607%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lIBaLwEqPqd%2FnxpK2l102%2BvPZf8EqQau0ZNvJlx7cdA%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
