> 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.
Here is an industry input. I am working on a case where I need 10M - 100M mobile sensors size of 1/10 of a penny spread accross North America to provide updates every 10 min on their location / physical status for the duration of three - five years. All of them must have full length IPv6 addresses. When should I expect the solution from this WG? Peter --- Behcet Sarikaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
