I do not think it is the question of whether or not IPv6 can be
implemented, the answer is of course it can be. Even IPsec/ MIPv6 can
implemented as Phil said. From IP point of view this is another L2, and
that's where I would like to comment.
It seems that there is a fundamental problem in forming WGs on
specific link layers, we have 6lowpan and 16ng as examples. In the past
this was not followed, e.g. we did not have 3G related WGs although 3G
has had much bigger impact.
The question we should ask is what is the model to follow in 6lowpan?
This seems to be not well defined so far and the discussions can help
it clarify. However, as Timo said, the requirements should come from
the industry, they should be real problems to be solved, so far we are
not seeing this.
As an example of the model, for example, for 16ng, we have WiMAX and
to a lesser extent IEEE 802.16 that produce the requirements for any
IETF standardization. WiMAX is taking the link spec from IEEE and
defining a full-fledged cellular network using this link.
We might probably need to define what a sensor network is and then
derive the requirements for 6lowpan WG to do IETF-domain
standardization.
Hope this helps,
--behcet
Geoff Mulligan wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:33 -0500, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Working Group Charter
From: Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:20:32 -0600
What do you mean "that we have no intention of actually implementing
IPv6 in wireless PANs". We have every intention of implementing IPv6 in
wireless PANs!
The working group arguably isn't implementing IPv6 from two perspectives:
o I don't think the IETF accepts the notion that implementing
a subset of IPv6 is actually implementing IPv6. But, I could
be wrong. I may ask this on question on the main IETF mail list.
Having said that, the working group intends to implement
only a subset of IPv6, (e.g., no IPsec, no mobile IP, etc).
Too bad that we have to rehash this again because you are coming late to
this discussion. We dealt with this issue already and the IESG said
that an implementation that did not include IPsec and the like was still
an implementation of IPv6.
o The protocol described in the format specification is not
IPv6. If you fed it into an IPv6 stack, nothing good would
happen. It is, however, a protocol that can easily be
transformed into [a subset of] IPv6.
If you do not use header compression then an IPv6 packet in the payload
of the 6lowpan frame format will work perfectly fine and everything good
will happen. The 6lowpan compressed headers are never intended to be
passed uncompressed out of a 6lowpan.
In fact WE (Invensys and some other companies) already have and WE
(Invensys) have it deployed in a significant number of homes in pilots
in the US right now.
See above.
I do not agree with the wording for your suggested Charter changes,
though I do truly appreciate that someone is starting some sort of
exchange on the list.
Feel free to suggest alternative language and ideas.
-tjs
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
|
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
