Sorry about that, I misunderstood your question. I have no idea about which prefix should be generated by the 6LBR, which is really one big issue. -- Best Regards, Minjun, Xi Nokia Research Center
-----Original Message----- From: ext Dijk, Esko [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:59 PM To: Xi Minjun (Nokia-NRC/Beijing); Nieminen Johanna.1 (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft) Hello Minjun, I don't see an issue in IPv6 address configuration in 6LNs / section 3.2.1. Rather the question is how the 6LBR (phone) obtains IP prefix(es). I was curious whether a cellular operator would provide either 1) an IPv6 prefix (which the phone could further use for prefix distribution into the LoWPAN) 2) an IPv6 address (in which case the phone needs some other mechanism to obtain an IPv6 prefix - see below) Quote from draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd: The 6LBRs are responsible for managing the prefix(es) assigned to the 6LoWPAN, using manual configuration, DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633], or other mechanisms. In an isolated LoWPAN a ULA [RFC4193] prefix SHOULD be generated by the 6LBR. If more is known how this is going to work eg for the topology in Fig 5, we could consider to write it in the I-D. Esko -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday 22 September 2011 15:53 To: Dijk, Esko; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Ready for WGLC? (Re: Latest version of IPv6 over BT-LE draft) 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 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.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
