Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Arul-
See my previous comments. The DoD have already defined those requirements. In fact, JITC has certified a few tape libraries already. See here: http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6.html 01010011 01100101 01101101 01110000 01100101 01110010 01000110 01101001 Jeremy Duncan Joint Interoperability Test Command IPv6 Test and Evaluation ManTech Telecommunications & Information Systems Office: 703-814-8384 Cell: 520-226-1789 __________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Arul Kumar Chellappan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:07 PM To: Julien Abeillé Cc: 6man; Mathilde Durvy; Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur); Mikko Saarnivala; Dominik Kaspar; Eunsook Kim; 6lowpan; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ipv6 requirements for a sensor/constrained device Dear Julien, Just putting my thoughts and comments are welcome. I had an opportunity to work on providing IPv6 capability for a tape library appliance. We were unable to strongly conclude the needed IPv6 requirements for that box. The main requirement for a IPv6 node is stateless auto configuration and the optional functionalities are stateful auto configuration and gateway configuration. Based on the level of IPv6 functionality a device needs, the IPv6 requirements increase. If the device needs the IPv6 just for the point to point (master-slave) communication, then just the link local address would be sufficient and I guess the auto config of a global address is not needed. Hence from my thoughts, the workgroup could first define the minimum and maximum IPv6 functionalities of the a constrained device. This would help device makers to classify whether the IPv6 capable device that is being developed is a constrained device or a fully capable IPv6 node, and accordingly choose the needed functionalities. Regards, Arul Kumar C -~- On 1/16/08, Julien Abeillé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, as a follow up of discussions around 6lowpan and ISA100 standardization, the people in cc and myself are starting an effort to identify minimum ipv6 requirements for a constrained device ( e.g. a sensor), so that ipv6 can be brought to such device. This work would be closely bound to implementation experiments. This has been discussed a bit within 6lowpan and I know a thread was started in 6man around RFC4294 update. What we would like to clarify is how this work could fit in IETF, in which WG, with whom, as well as the scope and process for this effort. We would appreciate your feedback on this topic. Best regards, Julien Abeille -- Julien Abeille Software Engineer Technology Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +41 21 822 1696 Mobile: +41 79 617 8881 Fax: +41 21 822 1604 Cisco Systems International Sarl Avenue des Uttins 5 1180 Rolle Switzerland (FR) Cisco home page <http://www.cisco.com/> Think before you print. Think before you print. This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> -------------------------------------------------------------------- Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
