Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-choi-6lo-owc-02

[Zhe Lou]

Dear 6lo,

I support the adoption of this draft. It extends the portfolio of 6lo over 
short range optical communication.

Kind regards
David

From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Shwetha Bhandari
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:20 AM
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-choi-6lo-owc-02


Dear 6lo WG,

This message starts a call for WG adoption of

draft-choi-6lo-owc-02.



(Link below:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-choi-6lo-owc-02.html

)



The call will end on the 15th of May, EOB.



Please state whether you are in favor of adopting this document.



Also, any comments you may have, and/or expressions of interest to review

the document, will be very much appreciated.



Thanks,



Shwetha

(Carles my co-chair is a co-author)
___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-thubert-6lo-prefix-registration-03

[Zhe Lou]

Hi 6lo WG,

I support the adoption of this draft.

Regards
David

-Original Message-
From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 9:12 AM
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of 
draft-thubert-6lo-prefix-registration-03

Dear 6lo WG,

This is a gentle reminder of the currently open call for adoption of 
draft-thubert-6lo-prefix-registration-03.

As stated in our initial message (below), the call will end on the 20th of 
July, EOB.

Thanks,

Shwetha and Carles

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:44, Carles Gomez Montenegro  
wrote:
>
> Dear 6lo WG,
>
> This message starts a call for WG adoption of 
> draft-thubert-6lo-prefix-registration-03.
>
> (Link below:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-prefix-registration
> )
>
> The call will end on the 20th of July, EOB.
>
> Please state whether you are in favor of adopting this document.
>
> Also, any comments you may have, and/or expressions of interest to 
> review the document, will be very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shwetha and Carles

___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-01

[Zhe Lou]

Dear 6lo WG,

The PASA solution encodes path information into addresses to enable stateless 
forwarding, suitable for applications with wired and static networks. Based on 
the received feedback and constructive discussion, we added in the PASA draft a 
“comprehensive use cases” chapter to provide a deeper view on a few use cases 
with wired connectivity and static topology to demo the applicability of the 
PASA solution. On top of that, by adding a new PASA_6LoRH routing header, the 
PASA is integrated into the overall 6LowPAN architecture. The forwarding 
behavior has been updated accordingly.

As one of the co-authors, I support the adoption of the draft.

Kind regards
David Lou

From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro
Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2023 14:50
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of 
draft-li-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-01

Dear 6lo WG,

As you may recall, the work formerly known as 'NSA' has been modified based on 
the feedback provided by the WG. The work has also been renamed as Path-Aware 
Semantic Addressing (PASA).

The initial version of the PASA draft was presented in IETF 115. The draft has 
been updated to address the comments received. After that, the authors have 
requested a call for adoption of the draft.

This message starts a call for WG adoption for
draft-li-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-01.

(Link below:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-01)

The call will end on the 8th of February 23:59 (UTC).

Please state whether you are in favor of adopting this document.

Also, any comments you may have, and/or expressions of interest to review
the document, will be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Shwetha and Carles
___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Re: [6lo] Call for 6lo wg adoption - draft-gomez-6lo-schc-15dot4

[Zhe Lou]

Dear all,

I support the adoption of this document as a 6lo WG document.

Regards
David

From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Shwetha
Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2022 07:48
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Cc: 6lo-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [6lo] Call for 6lo wg adoption - draft-gomez-6lo-schc-15dot4

Dear 6lo wg,


As per discussion during IETF 115, this message initiates a 2 week 
call-for-adoption for: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gomez-6lo-schc-15dot4/

(currently at rev 5)

Please send your opinion (for or against) to the mailing list on adopting

this  document as a 6lo WG document.



This call for adoption will end at 00:00 UTC on December 21, 2022.



Thanks,

Shwetha (as Carles is the co-author of the draft)
___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Re: [6lo] PASA smart home use case

[Zhe Lou]

Engineering-wise, it is definitely possible to design a home gateway with a PLC 
module inside. Actually it is a good idea. I should suggest it to my Internet 
provider :)

Regards
David

-Original Message-
From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca] 
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2022 18:48
To: Esko Dijk ; Zhe Lou ; 
6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] PASA smart home use case


I assumed that the HomeRouter had a physical interface that was a PLC.
Maybe it's physically a USB cable, but the PLC's layer-3 interface was inside 
the homerouter.

--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
   Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Re: [6lo] PASA smart home use case

[Zhe Lou]

Hi Esko,

You are right. Although the home gateway is also capable of providing internet 
access for laptops, TVs, etc., those devices can, but not necessarily to be 
included into the PASA network as the new addressing doesn’t provide too much 
gain for them.

We will update the figure 2 in the next version.

Regards
David

From: Esko Dijk [mailto:esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl]
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2022 16:25
To: Zhe Lou ; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: RE: PASA smart home use case

Thanks David,

It would be nice to add some clarification for this, indeed. E.g. the Ethernet 
link between Home Gateway and one PLC GW could be explicitly drawn. Now it’s 
not so clear where the Home Gateway link is going (it interferes with the ASCII 
art room boxes).

Also how the PLC network as drawn relates to the user’s further Wi-Fi / 
internet-access home network, would be useful to just mention. From what I read 
the Home Gateway provides also the internet access for other devices (laptop, 
TV, smartphone, etc). But these are not necessarily participating in the PASA 
addressing if they are on high-speed segments of the home network.

The type of powerline technology you refer is being used as an Ethernet 
replacements (so multi-Mbps speeds), I wonder if this is still of interest to 
the 6lo WG?
I would consider more constrained PLC use cases to be better targets for 6lo / 
PASA type technology, e.g. something with very low speed (like <= 500 kbps) or 
severe packet size limitations (<  100-500 bytes).

Regards
Esko

From: Zhe Lou mailto:zhe@huawei.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 13:13
To: Esko Dijk 
mailto:esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl>>; 
6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: PASA smart home use case

Hi Esko,

Thanks for comments. In fact the second interpretation is closer. The Home 
Gateway is the PASA root. However, the connection from the Home Gateway to the 
PLC GWs is combination of Ethernet and PLC. More precisely, the Home Gateway 
connects to a PLC GW (e.g. gwR) via Ethernet. Then this gwR connects to other 
PLC GWs via PLC. Herewith one example from Telenet, I used at home. This device 
offers both PLC and Ethernet interfaces
https://www2.telenet.be/nl/business/klantenservice/wat-is-powerline-en-hoe-installeren/
(Although in Dutch, I think you can read it :)

In such, we create at least 2 levels where PASA could be applied.

I can update the figure accordingly if you prefer.

Kind regards
David


From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Esko Dijk
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2022 11:47
To: 6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: [6lo] PASA smart home use case

Hi PASA authors,

As requested in the 6lo WG meeting I’m relaying my comments on the smart home 
use case (section 3.2 of draft-li-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-00).

In Fig 2, it could be clarified better where the PASA Root sits (i.e. the root 
and 6lo Border Router as depicted in the architecture Fig 5). A first 
assumption I had was that each PLC GW contains a PASA root, because the PLC 
network segment beneath it is the constrained 6lowpan network technology 
benefitting from PASA addressing.  Then each PLC segment has to deal with 
constrained nodes and constraints on the network throughput (i.e. low-speed 
PLC). In this case, the link connecting all the PLC gateways and the Home 
Gateway would be another e.g. high-speed (Ethernet, Wi-Fi) technology. This 
link uses in typical homes its own existing addressing which may be based on 
SLAAC or DHCPv6 delegated prefix via CPE / Home Gateway, or ULAs, or something 
else. The HomeNet WG defined solutions for such addressing using a new protocol 
I think and SNAC WG is now aiming to provide solutions for that as well that 
re-use already-present protocols & products in the home. That would not use 
PASA addresses and there seems to be no need to do that.

But, another interpretation of this figure is that Home Gateway provides the 
PASA Root. In this case all underlying devices including PLC Gateways 
themselves will get a PASA assigned address. This then would suggest that the 
link connecting the PLC GWs and Home Gateway is another kind of wired link, not 
PLC. What would this link technology be like -- is Ethernet assumed?  In this 
case where would the other home devices like laptops, smartphones, wireless 
smart home devices etc., be connected? It could be to a separate network that 
is not shown and that doesn’t use PASA addressing. Or maybe these devices are 
not shown but are on the same Ethernet link, not using PASA addresses but 
another type (the DHCPv6 / SLAAC / ULA / SNAC solutions mentioned above).

In summary, it’s hard for me to understand the current use case because not 
fully clear which interpretation of the 2 above I should assume.

In case of interpretation 1, the diagram does not show any tree topology per 
PLC network so I don’t understand yet why using PASA addresses here would be 
useful? SLAAC would work 

Re: [6lo] PASA smart home use case

[Zhe Lou]

Hi Esko,

Thanks for comments. In fact the second interpretation is closer. The Home 
Gateway is the PASA root. However, the connection from the Home Gateway to the 
PLC GWs is combination of Ethernet and PLC. More precisely, the Home Gateway 
connects to a PLC GW (e.g. gwR) via Ethernet. Then this gwR connects to other 
PLC GWs via PLC. Herewith one example from Telenet, I used at home. This device 
offers both PLC and Ethernet interfaces
https://www2.telenet.be/nl/business/klantenservice/wat-is-powerline-en-hoe-installeren/
(Although in Dutch, I think you can read it :)

In such, we create at least 2 levels where PASA could be applied.

I can update the figure accordingly if you prefer.

Kind regards
David


From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Esko Dijk
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2022 11:47
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: [6lo] PASA smart home use case

Hi PASA authors,

As requested in the 6lo WG meeting I’m relaying my comments on the smart home 
use case (section 3.2 of draft-li-6lo-path-aware-semantic-addressing-00).

In Fig 2, it could be clarified better where the PASA Root sits (i.e. the root 
and 6lo Border Router as depicted in the architecture Fig 5). A first 
assumption I had was that each PLC GW contains a PASA root, because the PLC 
network segment beneath it is the constrained 6lowpan network technology 
benefitting from PASA addressing.  Then each PLC segment has to deal with 
constrained nodes and constraints on the network throughput (i.e. low-speed 
PLC). In this case, the link connecting all the PLC gateways and the Home 
Gateway would be another e.g. high-speed (Ethernet, Wi-Fi) technology. This 
link uses in typical homes its own existing addressing which may be based on 
SLAAC or DHCPv6 delegated prefix via CPE / Home Gateway, or ULAs, or something 
else. The HomeNet WG defined solutions for such addressing using a new protocol 
I think and SNAC WG is now aiming to provide solutions for that as well that 
re-use already-present protocols & products in the home. That would not use 
PASA addresses and there seems to be no need to do that.

But, another interpretation of this figure is that Home Gateway provides the 
PASA Root. In this case all underlying devices including PLC Gateways 
themselves will get a PASA assigned address. This then would suggest that the 
link connecting the PLC GWs and Home Gateway is another kind of wired link, not 
PLC. What would this link technology be like -- is Ethernet assumed?  In this 
case where would the other home devices like laptops, smartphones, wireless 
smart home devices etc., be connected? It could be to a separate network that 
is not shown and that doesn’t use PASA addressing. Or maybe these devices are 
not shown but are on the same Ethernet link, not using PASA addresses but 
another type (the DHCPv6 / SLAAC / ULA / SNAC solutions mentioned above).

In summary, it’s hard for me to understand the current use case because not 
fully clear which interpretation of the 2 above I should assume.

In case of interpretation 1, the diagram does not show any tree topology per 
PLC network so I don’t understand yet why using PASA addresses here would be 
useful? SLAAC would work equally well. The diagram suggests that all PLC 
devices in a segment can talk to all other PLC devices in the segment in a 
single hop – no tree. That suggests all PLC devices are leaf devices. Is that 
intended? I recall there are also PLC technologies that build a tree when some 
device can’t reach the GW in one hop.

Regards
Esko Dijk


IoTconsultancy.nl  |  Email/Teams: 
esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl


___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03

[Zhe Lou]

Dear 6lo,
 
For the past 3 weeks, I saw many people support the adoption of the 
draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03. Meanwhile, we received some concerns on 
the applicability and reliability of the NSA solution as well. Regarding to the 
applicability, the draft clearly states that the NSA solution is suitable for 
“scenarios and applications with static network topologies and stable network 
connections leveraging on wired technologies…” In the 
draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-13, it lists at least 2 use cases using wireline 
technologies. For instance the smart grid use case has wide applicability, 
which typically contains a star/tree-based topology as indicated in the 
6lo-use-case draft and many other academic publications.* NSA can be perfectly 
applied here. On top of that, smart manufacturing as indicated in the Kiran’s 
email is another use case example. In the shop floor of a factory, most of the 
devices are connected in wire. In the light of Industry 4.0, the manufacturers 
expects the sensors and actuators deployed in the shop floor can communicate to 
the cloud directly. NSA could be a good candidate to bridge most of the 
industrial Ethernet protocols (e.g. EtherCAT, Sercos, Powerlink, cc-link IE, 
etc.) towards the Internet. The one mentioned by Rong is another good example.
 
Another concern is the reliability. As NSA is suitable for wireline use cases, 
the system stability is by nature much higher than wireless systems. In the 
smart grid use case for instance, I believe the NSA solution defined in the 
draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 could work. One may argue when the 
electricity is down, the network is off. But in reality, power outage doesn’t 
happen so often. Anyway, based on the feedback from the community, we wrote 
another draft-li-nsa-reliability-00 to illustrate how to further improve the 
reliability of the system by adding an extra redundant link to make sure that 
one child will have at least 2 parents. We may dive into deep discussion on the 
reliability draft in a separate thread.
 
As one of the authors, I support the WG adoption of the 
draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03.
 
*D. Seo, H. Lee, A. Perrig, “Secure and Efficient Capability-Based Power 
Management in the Smart Grid”, IEEE Ninth International Symposium on Parallel 
and Distributed Processing with Applications Workshops, May 2011
*T. Hartmann, F. Fouquet, J. Klein, et. Al, “Generating realistic Smart Grid 
communication topologies based on real-data”, IEEE International Conference on 
Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), November, 2014
 

Kind regards
David Lou



-Original Message-
From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of longrong
Sent: Friday, 19 August 2022 10:33
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03

I support this adoption. To response of challenges to use case and 
applicability, I would share a concrete use case described as follows:

Companies(including CMCC) build more and more huge datacenters as the 
development of business. However, not all of them comply with the newest 
regulations for power & environment(P) supervision. So, there are 
requirements to setup extra P supervision sensors and devices in those 
datacenters.
The current P supervision system employ Field Supervision Unit(FSU) for data 
transmission and power supply, however, due to the shortage of ports and 
limitation of voltage supply, FSU cannot fulfill the massive sensor requirement 
of the smart/intelligent datacenter, which often requires over 600 or 1000 
sensors, so additional power supply or batteries are often used. In this case, 
although massive sensors can help reduce the power consumption of datacenter 
cooling, but the data transmission of those sensors also caused huge power 
consumption, which can be improved by low power transmission protocol. And 
wireless is not the most optimized approach for connection because of 
electromagnetic interference. Field supervision unit(FSU) will connect to 
sensor by wired technology, such as AI/DI/RS232/RS485/single pair ethernet. 
Multiple FSUs will connect to hierarchical supervision centers and then make 
data communication with supervision platform by IPv6.

I believe the NSA solution is a good attempt to be used in this use case. And 
Data center supervision is just one typical use case, with emerging of various 
smart applications, massive terminal or sensors connection will become regular 
method, thus a low power transmission method is necessary for reduce heavy 
power consumption.



Research Institute of China Mobile
32 West XuanWuMen Ave, Xichen District,
Beijing 100053, China

Mobile：13701354531 
E-mail：longr...@chinamobile.com



-Original Message-
From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 11:43 PM
To: 6lo <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03


> believe that it has