Esko, DHCPv6 for 6LoWPAN network. In the current version of I-D, there's one chapter (3.2.1) describing "IPv6 Address Configuration", which mentioned "Stateless autoconfiguration". Stateless autoconfiguration is defined in RFC4862, which is different from "stateful autoconfiguration" (aka DHCPv6).
Compared with 6LoWPAN over BT-LE, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd has defined the mechanism to configure IPv6 addresses for 6LoWPAN over 802.15.4. In draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-17, there're several assumptions for 6lowpan-nd. It says "All nodes in the network have an EUI-64 interface identifier in order to do address auto-configuration and detect duplicate addresses." Also, draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd introduces the Address Registration mechanism and the optional DAD mechanism. DHCPv6 is not optimized for low-power and lossy networks including 802.15.4 and BT-LE. I think it is necessary to make the "IPv6 address configuration" for 6LoWPAN over BT-LE clear in the future revision. Thank you! -- Best Regards, Minjun, Xi Nokia Research Center On 9/19/11 9:54 PM, "ext Dijk, Esko" <[email protected]> wrote: >Dear BT-LE authors, all, > >I haven't done a detailed review but I have one technical >comment/question. The typical case in the I-D is a BT-LE mobile phone, >connected to the internet, acting as a 6LBR and distributing an IP prefix >to 6LNs. Is it the intention that an IP prefix for the 6LoWPAN can be >obtained by the phone via DHCPv6 ? If so would an ISP support this for a >phone connected to their 3G network? > >Obtaining an IP prefix by the 6LBR seems necessary to enable routing from >a host on the internet to a 6LN. > >regards, >Esko > > >Esko Dijk > >Philips Corporate Technologies, Research >High Tech Campus 34, Eindhoven, The Netherlands >[email protected] > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Carsten Bormann >Sent: Friday 9 September 2011 14:43 >To: [email protected] >Subject: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE >draft) > >6LoWPANners, > >we are now looking at the third WG version (-02) of this draft. > >Are we ready to do a working-group last-call on this? > >-- if you see something major that needs to be done before this is ready, >please speak up now. > (If you have technical comments, or maybe some editorial suggestions, >these are also useful at this point, although there also will be time to >comment in the actual WGLC.) > >-- conversely, if you have reviewed the document and like it, please do >speak up (and please do say what you have specifically looked at). > >Of course, we don't want to go into a WGLC with glaring omissions (I >gather Appendix A is not really a necessary part of this spec), and we >also don't want to go into WGLC if the working group hasn't been able to >review the document or, worse, if nobody actually cares. > >Please respond to this message by Sep 16. > >Gruesse, Carsten > >_______________________________________________ >6lowpan mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > >The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally >protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the >addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby >notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this >message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the >intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and >destroy all copies of the original message. > >_______________________________________________ >6lowpan mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
