If the answer is unclear, and considering that we are re-chartering the group,
maybe we could have
a work item to specify the instantiation of RFC 4294 for LoWPAN nodes?
Pascal
________________________________________
From: Kris Pister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:42 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [RSN] Here is the new RL2N Proposed Working Charter
Is there an email thread somewhere that discusses the impact on 6LoWPAN of the
security
requirements of 4294 and 4303?
My first quick readthrough makes me very uncomfortable that some of the
mandates are going to be
ugly from a header standpoint.
ksjp
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hi JP:
Thanks a bunch for this charter. I'll try not to rephrase what was already
discussed with Christian,
Anders, Philip and Misha.
There's an additional item I'd wish to see either in ROLL or 6LoWPAN and I do
not know exactly
where it belongs, maybe both. The question is whether we need to and can
document how RFC 4294
applies for sensors, and M2M devices in general, whether they act as hosts or
as routers.
I've seen IPv6 presented as a Pandora box that drags just too much stuff to be
incorporated in a
sensory device. For instance, at the moment, SP100.11a endorses 6LoWPAN formats
but it's not so clear
at all that IPv6 itself is mandated. A clear spec with well-documented
implementation could be a
formidable tool to despond to Fear, Uncertainty and Defiance.
So maybe we do not need DHCP (a MAY in RFC 4294) and maybe can do without
multicast at all if ND is
supported some other way (such as suggested in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-
lowpan-backbone-router-00.txt). Maybe NULL encryption and authentication is
enough etc, etc...
Being able to define one minimum set and maybe a few other profiles for the use
cases that we
selected could help tremendously.
Otherwise I find the charter real well written and easy to digest. >>From the
MANEMO experience, I
expect that some arguments about the relative applicability of existing MANET
protocols will be
difficult to prove without some good simulation work running agreed-upon
scenarios.
Finally, I'm a bit confused that it seems that both IPv4 and IPv6 seem
supported. Ipv4 comes with a
lot of overhead like DHCP. I suggest that when trouble comes and things can not
be done in a common
fashion for both IP protocols, hen we prioritize IPv6.
Unfortunately, I can not make it to Vancouver, but I do feel that the work is
really needed so
please count my vote in for the adoption of the WG.
Cheers,
Pascal
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [RSN] Here is the new RL2N Proposed Working Charter
Dear all,
As promised, here is the new proposed Working Group, which reflects the
number of comments/suggestions that we received, the pre-WG consensus, ...
Thanks to Dave Ward (RTD AD) for his input.
Proposed RL2N WG Charter
Description of Working Group
L2Ns (Low power and Lossy networks) are typically composed of many embedded
devices with limited power, memory, and processing resources interconnected
by a variety of wireless links, such as IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth, Low Power
WiFi.
L2Ns are transitioning to an end-to-end IP-based solution to avoid the
problems of non-interoperable networks interconnected by protocol
translation gateways and proxies. In addition, L2Ns have specific routing
requirements that are not currently met by existing routing protocols, such
as OSPF, IS-IS, AODV, and OLSR. L2N path selection must be designed to take
into consideration the specific power, capabilities, attributes and
functional characteristics of the links and nodes in the network.
There is a wide scope of application areas for L2Ns, including industrial
monitoring, building automation (HVAC, lighting/access control), connected
home, healthcare, environmental monitoring, agricultural, smart cities,
logistics, assets tracking, and refrigeration. The L2N WG will focus on
routing solutions for a subset of these deployment scenarios, namely
industrial, connected home/building and urban applications. The Working
Group will determine the routing requirements for these scenarios.
The Working Group will provide a routing framework for these application
scenarios that provides high reliability in the presence of time varying
loss characteristics and connectivity while permitting low-power operation
with very modest memory and CPU pressure.
The Working Group will pay a particular attention to routing security and
manageability (e.g self managing/configuration) issues, which are
particularly critical for L2Ns.
Work Items:
- Produce use cases documents for Industrial, Connected Home, Building and
urban application networks. Each document will describe the use case and the
associated routing protocol requirements. The documents will progress in
collaboration with the 6lowpan Working Group (INT area).
- Survey the applicability of existing protocols to L2Ns. The aim of this
document will be to analyze the scaling and characteristics of existing
protocols and identify whether or not they meet the routing requirements of
the L2Ns applications identified above. Existing IGPs, MANET, NEMO, DTN
routing protocols will be part of evaluation.
- Specification of routing metrics used in path calculation. This includes
static and dynamic link/nodes attributes required for routing in L2Ns.
- Provide an architectural framework for routing and path selection at Layer
3 (Routing for L2N Architecture)
* Decide whether the L2Ns routing protocol require a distributed,
centralized path computation models or both.
* Decide whether the L2N routing protocol requires a hierarchical routing
approach.
- Produce a security framework for routing in L2Ns.
Goals And Milestones:
April 2008 Submit Use case/Routing requirements for Industrial, Connected
Home, Building and Urban networks applications to the IESG to be considered
as an Informational RFC.
August 2008: Submit Routing metrics for L2Ns document to the IESG to be
considered as an Informational RFC.
September 2008: Submit first draft of the Routing for L2Ns Architecture
document (summary of requirements, path computation model,
flat/hierarchy,Š).
November 2008: Submit Protocol Survey to the IESG to be considered as an
Informational RFC.
January 2009 Submit Security Framework for L2Ns to the IESG to be considered
as an Informational RFC
February 2009: Submit the Routing for L2Ns Architecture document (summary
of requirements, metrics and attributes, path selection model) to the IESG
as an Informational RFC.
March 2009: Recharter.
Please comment/suggest/...
See you in Vancouver.
JP and David.
_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
