From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 04 16:28:23 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf0Y-0004Oa-6v; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:28:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf0W-0004O1-8W for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:28:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf0U-0004Ar-UN for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:28:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2007 16:28:18 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.20,208,1186372800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="70040162:sNHT79448470" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l84KSIMV014620; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:28:18 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l84KSIik018254; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:28:18 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:28:18 -0400 Received: from [10.86.104.180] ([10.86.104.180]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:28:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46D2F46C.9040308@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <1182290571.6218.29.camel@dellx1> <467FFF42.9010402@cisco.com> <0A790B2E-E99C-4E7B-9D83-622C2D229CEA@cisco.com> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046585C5@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <46D2F46C.9040308@eecs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Message-Id: <65C370F8-0637-46F1-9B49-99DE55801A4D@cisco.com> From: JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Rechartering consensus... Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0400 To: Kris Pister X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2007 20:28:17.0532 (UTC) FILETIME=[207573C0:01C7EF32] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6428; t=1188937698; x=1189801698; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20Rechartering=20consensus... |Sender:=20 |To:=20Kris=20Pister=20; bh=KSnVgYgYIgIHVTyLJdL7Fl1T+tzJroIlXGwwxjJJtug=; b=IGgwCTGARPQxqPgFsKWb5Tt/pbUduTIc4wRkdd9+Wsc5w9aMV/prfpOyN2PbydD96rU4LQuB tL0L0E2fjS4+BISulDtzFXwTFbjl8+gfsBMhwqD2Q3T3FZWHMfRcORJh; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 225414c974e0d6437992164e91287a51 Cc: rsn@ietf.org, 6lowpan <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0159498549==" Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org --===============0159498549== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-27-177064109 --Apple-Mail-27-177064109 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Kris, On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Kris Pister wrote: > >> 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer. > > For sure the word "requires" is incorrect. I don't think that > there's any question at this point that it's possible to route > over. There is still reasonable debate over what the optimal thing > to do is, where different people have very different views of what > "optimal" means! :) > If I may reformulate your question ... "Considering that Route over is MUST for the number of reasons discussed on various Mailing Lists, why do we still need a mesh under routing solution ?". Thanks. JP. > ksjp > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>> "6lowpan Mesh Routing" >>> >>> JP> One of these "hot" topic. And of course, the main question will >>> to be >>> discuss whether Mesh-under routing is required if Route over is >>> available. >>> In particular, open questions are "If we claim a need for a mesh >>> under routing, >>> does that mean that we'll see a plethora of IDs showing how to adapt >>> >> all >> >>> protocols (e.g. MANET) used in a 802.15.4 environment ?" >>> >>> >> [Pascal] Hi JP: >> >> "While most routing protocols are defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan >> requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer." >> >> I'm also anxious about that sentence. The need for a mesh under vs. >> routing over should be motivated; also, if that happens, then the >> IETF >> might not be the place for this work. It already happens in a >> number of >> places such as SP100, HART or 802.15.5. >> >> It seems more consistent to focus on IP and delegate a routing over >> protocol to the Routing Area. So I'd rather have 6LoWPAN support the >> RL2N (RSN ML) efforts because they are defining a mesh technology >> that >> is L2 agnostic, fit into the IETF scope and benefit from the area >> experience in routing, as opposed to proposing yet another mesh under >> protocol that might not be well considered by the mentioned standard >> organizations. >> >> Pascal >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --Apple-Mail-27-177064109 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Kris,

On Aug 27, 2007, at 11:57 AM, Kris Pister = wrote:

>> 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below = the IP layer.

For sure the word "requires" is incorrect.=A0 I = don't think that there's any question at this point that it's possible = to route over.=A0 There is still reasonable debate over what the optimal = thing to do is, where different people have very different views of what = "optimal" means! :)


If I may reformulate your = question ... "Considering that Route over is MUST for the number of = reasons discussed
on various Mailing Lists, why do we still = need a mesh under routing solution ?".

Thanks.

JP.

ksjp

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: = 
"6lowpan Mesh Routing"

JP> One of these "hot" topic. And of course, the main question will
to be
discuss whether Mesh-under routing is required if Route over is
available.
In particular, open questions are "If we claim a need for a mesh
under routing,
does that mean that we'll see a plethora of IDs showing how to adapt
    
all
  
protocols (e.g. =
MANET) used in a 802.15.4 environment ?"

    
[Pascal] Hi JP:

"While most routing protocols are defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan
requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer."

I'm also anxious about that sentence. The need for a mesh under vs.
routing over should be motivated; also, if that happens, then the IETF
might not be the place for this work. It already happens in a number of
places such as SP100, HART or 802.15.5.=20

It seems more consistent to focus on IP and delegate a routing over
protocol to the Routing Area. So I'd rather have 6LoWPAN support the
RL2N (RSN ML) efforts because they are defining a mesh technology that
is L2 agnostic, fit into the IETF scope and benefit from the area
experience in routing, as opposed to proposing yet another mesh under
protocol that might not be well considered by the mentioned standard
organizations.

Pascal

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.=
org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
6lowpan mailing list
=

= --Apple-Mail-27-177064109-- --===============0159498549== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --===============0159498549==-- From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 04 16:28:33 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf0i-0004UP-Sx; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:28:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf0h-0004St-TT for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:28:31 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf0g-0004BI-IW for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:28:31 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2007 16:28:31 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.20,208,1186372800"; d="scan'208"; a="130915544:sNHT50395724" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l84KSUkL012997; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:28:30 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l84KSUik018281; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:28:30 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:28:27 -0400 Received: from [10.86.104.180] ([10.86.104.180]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:28:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <19FB6C53-30D9-431A-96B2-779E1C08F8D0@tzi.org> References: <1182290571.6218.29.camel@dellx1> <467FFF42.9010402@cisco.com> <0A790B2E-E99C-4E7B-9D83-622C2D229CEA@cisco.com> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046585C5@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <46D2F46C.9040308@eecs.berkeley.edu> <19FB6C53-30D9-431A-96B2-779E1C08F8D0@tzi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Rechartering consensus... Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:27:51 -0400 To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2007 20:28:26.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[25F1B7F0:01C7EF32] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=947; t=1188937710; x=1189801710; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20Rechartering=20consensus... |Sender:=20 |To:=20Carsten=20Bormann=20; bh=YXhG3W82sJXM/JvvLBqT66sT8TjH3lPYTxLiQvOWWA0=; b=A24ZHlD+iUq6BOsjMYxYKP/kOnzPx85xZiYuBCxqnplMCx4d1PNvV/BM7OaQ8YvQ8OT5J6yd NqoSvIrtmyK2tMhk/9aIa5g2YDXOuDU5WaEE0VHZnt/Zaim1AsBBQBVI; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org>, rsn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Aug 27 2007, at 17:57, Kris Pister wrote: > >> 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer. >> >> For sure the word "requires" is incorrect. > > I'm sure the term "6lowpan" can be redefined to make this statement > true. > For now, RFC4919 takes the stance that L2 routing ("mesh") is an > integral part of the 6lowpan requirements. Note that RFC4919 is a problem statement, not a requirement document with RFC2119 language. Furthermore there is nothing in the RFC that mandates for the routing function to take place at the layer2. > If we want to change this, I'd like to hear a good argument why > this recent consensus is no longer valid. > Thanks. JP. > Gruesse, Carsten > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 04 16:32:20 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf4N-0007UF-C6; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:32:19 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf4M-0007Sm-5b for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:32:18 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf4K-0004Jv-15 for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:32:18 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2007 16:32:15 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.20,208,1186372800"; d="scan'208"; a="70040761:sNHT53518062" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l84KWFWM017230; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:32:15 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l84KVk5w026469; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:32:15 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:32:10 -0400 Received: from [10.86.104.180] ([10.86.104.180]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:32:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46D2FE0C.6080109@eecs.berkeley.edu> References: <1182290571.6218.29.camel@dellx1> <467FFF42.9010402@cisco.com> <0A790B2E-E99C-4E7B-9D83-622C2D229CEA@cisco.com> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046585C5@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <46D2F46C.9040308@eecs.berkeley.edu> <19FB6C53-30D9-431A-96B2-779E1C08F8D0@tzi.org> <1edd46e70708270919g671ca16bp2b22f2e3a5c08071@mail.gmail.com> <46D2FE0C.6080109@eecs.berkeley.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Rechartering consensus... Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:31:33 -0400 To: Kris Pister X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2007 20:32:09.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAD5CC90:01C7EF32] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2368; t=1188937935; x=1189801935; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20Rechartering=20consensus... |Sender:=20 |To:=20Kris=20Pister=20; bh=iqeF+KVuq6XgzWolyfHu8wxLwy885r8Tlad3mZzeiM0=; b=rauqhm/Gmf6IVLiByjZTRuNdVJ0/MD9QH1jAuzVqJNwxeWkXhYLO0jgBVGsV4Nm6LlO8OYDd d12iaE9mijbAKTPaKkUifRGeOCMlPM9GWEmptsequy2CbB4+bRnC8eeU; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org>, rsn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Kris Pister wrote: > Carsten - I'm using 6lowpan in the broad sense of the original > acronym, not just RFC4919. That may be incorrect, and I should use > different terminology. > > Joe - what layer does MPLS fit in? MPLS looks a little weird, and > a little "2.5"-ish, but to me it's the approach that makes the most > sense for 6lowpan. I haven't gone back to read all of the > discussion, but it seems like the only thing that got added in v6 > was the flow label. This flow label provides a wonderful > opportunity to work with protocols like HART and sp100 that use an > L3 graph-ID to govern L2 operation. I think that we could define a > different HC that keeps the v6 flow label and uses that to control > L2. I'm not sure how much of RSVP, etc would be needed to pull > this off, but it seems like it should be possible to do something > very similar to what already exists for MPLS (but probably > simplified, compressed, etc). I'd like to work on this with > someone who is more facile with all of the L3 stuff (which I am not). As discussed in the past, this may be an option indeed, using a PCE- based or distributed approach to compute paths instantiated by some protocols TBD. This would be very much similar to MPLS and in line with the requirement for L3 routing. Should a WG (RSN) be formed, this would be the place where to discuss the pros/cons of such approach. But before discussing the routing solution we first need to flesh out the application specific routing requirement IDs since such solution may clearly not be applicable to all scenarios. Thanks. JP. > > > ksjp > > Joe Polastre wrote: >>> For now, RFC4919 takes the stance that L2 routing ("mesh") is an >>> integral part of the 6lowpan requirements. >>> >> First comment is that mesh is a networking protocol, not a data-link >> protocol. Thus, it cannot be an L2 "routing" requirement. >> >> Since IP is at L3, I agree with Kris--mesh can either be L2.5 (which >> is a bit weird IMHO), it can co-exist with IP (in an undefined way), >> or it can be leveraged above IP similar to overlays. >> >> -Joe >> > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 04 16:32:37 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf4f-00085m-Ps; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:32:37 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf4d-00084f-Rj for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:32:35 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISf4c-0004Lc-KO for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:32:35 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2007 16:32:34 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.20,208,1186372800"; d="scan'208"; a="70040804:sNHT58209894" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l84KWYmm015677; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:32:34 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l84KWQim020117; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:32:26 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:32:18 -0400 Received: from [10.86.104.180] ([10.86.104.180]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:32:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1edd46e70708271916g56f13ddai7f6343c494ebabe5@mail.gmail.com> References: <1182290571.6218.29.camel@dellx1> <467FFF42.9010402@cisco.com> <0A790B2E-E99C-4E7B-9D83-622C2D229CEA@cisco.com> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046585C5@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <46D2F46C.9040308@eecs.berkeley.edu> <19FB6C53-30D9-431A-96B2-779E1C08F8D0@tzi.org> <1edd46e70708270919g671ca16bp2b22f2e3a5c08071@mail.gmail.com> <46D2FE0C.6080109@eecs.berkeley.edu> <1edd46e70708271916g56f13ddai7f6343c494ebabe5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Rechartering consensus... Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:31:42 -0400 To: Joe Polastre X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2007 20:32:18.0189 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFE6CBD0:01C7EF32] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3792; t=1188937954; x=1189801954; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20Rechartering=20consensus... |Sender:=20 |To:=20Joe=20Polastre=20; bh=Uaz6RQ3fjUqM0fsj3CwzERCvRM0GxawQq2KexNHJXiU=; b=ZDoP3TVe3FJ9t5hBBUUY1G4cUCVOdKjdaeE6I8SSgvOEsPoxdDKM+WVm9pA4/4WbTWJt/6cH pF8Vz2rhXfUBLO5IAoy0aLLRDyPcyBjRcDQg9gtHKvi7uWBenjF7+9/M; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org>, rsn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Joe Polastre wrote: > To me, its a matter of defining abstractions clearly. Data link > traditionally meant two points connected directly with the use of a > physical wire (ie, it sits right above the "physical layer"). > > In this domain, we have this quirky ability to have multiple direct > connections. For example, I may be able to directly connect with > Kris, but I can also connect with Kris via John. From a software > layering perspective, I can leverage both options at L2/L2.5 to make > it look to the network layer like I have a reliable direct data-link > connection to Kris, regardless of whether I reach Kris directly or > talk to him via John. This becomes murkier if all of your "direct" > connections are not direct at all or have no possible direct > path--then you're potentially treading on the realm of L3 protocols. > This is why this mesh networking domain has had the problem of > communicating data and metadata between layers transparently, since > each of the layers seems to muddle in other layers' business. > > I agree that MPLS is probably most applicable here, and really is one > of these L2.5 services because it is abstracting all kinds of ugly > mess underneath to look like a single data link to L3 protocols. To avoid confusion, MPLS Routing is performed at layer 3 ! It is the dataplane that does not involve IP lookup but the routing function is definitely at the IP layer: LDP paths follow the IGP shortest paths and TE LSPs are computed using the TED that is fed by the routing protocols; then constrained-based routing is used to compute a constrained path and TE LSP establishment is performed via RSVP-TE. Thanks. JP. > > -Joe > > On 8/27/07, Kris Pister wrote: >> >> Carsten - I'm using 6lowpan in the broad sense of the original >> acronym, not >> just RFC4919. That may be incorrect, and I should use different >> terminology. >> >> Joe - what layer does MPLS fit in? MPLS looks a little weird, >> and a little >> "2.5"-ish, but to me it's the approach that makes the most sense for >> 6lowpan. I haven't gone back to read all of the discussion, but >> it seems >> like the only thing that got added in v6 was the flow label. This >> flow >> label provides a wonderful opportunity to work with protocols like >> HART and >> sp100 that use an L3 graph-ID to govern L2 operation. I think >> that we could >> define a different HC that keeps the v6 flow label and uses that >> to control >> L2. I'm not sure how much of RSVP, etc would be needed to pull >> this off, >> but it seems like it should be possible to do something very >> similar to what >> already exists for MPLS (but probably simplified, compressed, >> etc). I'd >> like to work on this with someone who is more facile with all of >> the L3 >> stuff (which I am not). >> >> ksjp >> >> >> Joe Polastre wrote: >> >> For now, RFC4919 takes the stance that L2 routing ("mesh") is an >> integral part of the 6lowpan requirements. >> >> First comment is that mesh is a networking protocol, not a data-link >> protocol. Thus, it cannot be an L2 "routing" requirement. >> >> Since IP is at L3, I agree with Kris--mesh can either be L2.5 (which >> is a bit weird IMHO), it can co-exist with IP (in an undefined way), >> or it can be leveraged above IP similar to overlays. >> >> -Joe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 04 16:41:11 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISfCx-0004KK-7Y; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:41:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISfCv-0004K3-TB for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:41:09 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ISfCu-0004Xq-Jm for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:41:09 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2007 16:41:09 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.20,208,1186372800"; d="scan'208"; a="130917481:sNHT58782856" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l84Kf8tV021152; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:41:08 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l84Kf85Q000604; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:41:08 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:41:07 -0400 Received: from [10.86.104.180] ([10.86.104.180]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:41:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046587BA@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> References: <1182290571.6218.29.camel@dellx1> <467FFF42.9010402@cisco.com> <0A790B2E-E99C-4E7B-9D83-622C2D229CEA@cisco.com> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046585C5@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <46D2F46C.9040308@eecs.berkeley.edu> <19FB6C53-30D9-431A-96B2-779E1C08F8D0@tzi.org> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC046587BA@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2D48C946-F567-443B-95EB-C9846259D470@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: JP Vasseur Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Rechartering consensus... Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:40:29 -0400 To: Pascal Thubert ((pthubert)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2007 20:41:06.0855 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB02D370:01C7EF33] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4434; t=1188938468; x=1189802468; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[6lowpan]=20Rechartering=20consensus... |Sender:=20 |To:=20Pascal=20Thubert=20((pthubert))=20; bh=vqCgOdaZcyq+xO1rLAm8GQRI1DQm835yEn4DyfKJanA=; b=meL6WFsx6MUazh6ZsLdksGMxxA+SmUJ7sBtzcM/UtIrURSZKC/nxOBQmXbcUWkuRomnCIHhi 1CL0/C+/ID0TrZEkILloNrOaDg4NgEhQQ+Qjhtq5cANqAx7Su/jGHjLh; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 22bbb45ef41b733eb2d03ee71ece8243 Cc: Carsten Bormann , rsn@ietf.org, 6lowpan <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org> X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Hi Pascal, On Aug 28, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Pascal Thubert ((pthubert)) wrote: > Hi Carsten, > > Yes, I suspect we want to alter the wording of a requirement in the > charter. I've not seen similar text in RFC 4919 but I might have > missed > it. Rather, the RFC states in page 5 the requirement on a routing > protocol. > > We want IPv6 in the sensor space ASAP so that applications in edge > servers can be developed for it and 6LoWPAN is a major step on that > path. Proprietary versions of mesh under protocols (TSMP, X-mesh, you > name it) are being deployed in the field and it would be great that > the > standard versions move to IPv6 as the de facto network layer and > provide > the associated LINK abstraction. I understand that the SP100-NetTrans > task group has already taken the position to use 6LoWPAN as the > network > layer. That reminds me that we still need to work on routing metric scheme providing layer-2 abstraction. > > A mesh under is one fine way to provide the link abstraction that IP > needs, and a frame relay PVC based cloud is the proof that the model > works. Well it is also the proof that Routing in an overlay network is sometimes problematic (we all remember IP routing over ATM with PNNI). > There is little question in my mind that 6LoWPAN can work with > WiHART or similar once they provide this abstraction. What's tricky is > the word "requires" in the proposed re-charter that Geoff sent in June > for this thread. > > A L2 mesh will provide a P2MP or NBMA abstraction for IP, but will > have > trouble optimizing the support of multicast upon which IPv6 relies for > basic operations. Also, when we consider the self-forming, self- > healing > characteristics that we are looking for, then some history might > help us > avoid past mistakes. There have been a number of attempts to provide > mesh under mode in the WAN space, including PNNI, Here we go ... > NBBS etc... > Not to mention end-to-end routing consistencies, QoS routing, ... > After years of trials and failure, IP routing has emerged to be the > most > consistent solution to optimize end-to-end connectivity, with the > tooling and management support that comes with it. Further, this > enabled > a new virtual switched network, MPLS, which benefits from IP > routing for > its path computation, optimization (Traffic Engineering Constrained > Path) and isolation (Virtual Private Networks). Absolutely. > > So in my mind, it is not true that 6LoWPAN requires a mesh under > protocol. What is true is that the routing that 6LoWPAN requires would > largely benefit from IP technology should it be IP based. As Kris and > Joe discussed in this thread, IP routing would enable us to extend the > MPLS network down to the sensors, for a better security and QoS > management. > > So my proposal is: > - work with external standard groups such as HCF and SP100 to insure > that 6LoWPAN is compatible with their link abstractions. > - work with the routing area to provide an alternate IP-based routing > over solution > > What do you think? Well I think that we have reached a consensus on the second bullet, thus the work being done by RSN (although there is still no WG: we may have a BOF in Vancouver). On the first bullet, I cannot agree more. This is what I was referring to by "routing metric scheme providing layer-2 abstraction". Thanks. JP. > > Pascal > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org] >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:15 PM >> To: Kris Pister >> Cc: Carsten Bormann; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 6lowpan >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Rechartering consensus... >> >> On Aug 27 2007, at 17:57, Kris Pister wrote: >> >>> 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer. >>> >>> For sure the word "requires" is incorrect. >> >> I'm sure the term "6lowpan" can be redefined to make this statement >> true. >> For now, RFC4919 takes the stance that L2 routing ("mesh") is an >> integral part of the 6lowpan requirements. >> If we want to change this, I'd like to hear a good argument why this >> recent consensus is no longer valid. >> >> Gruesse, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 07 13:01:57 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IThDP-00011K-Br; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:01:55 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IThDO-00011A-GH for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:01:54 -0400 Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.201.18] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IThDO-0002DZ-2V for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:01:54 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (maildrop [134.102.201.19]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l87H1p7k012874; Fri, 7 Sep 2007 19:01:51 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Carsten Bormann Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 19:01:50 +0200 To: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: Carsten Bormann Subject: [6lowpan] IETF 69 minutes X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Lowpanners, I have uploaded the draft minutes, which you can find at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/6lowpan.txt We have until Wednesday 2100 UTC to make corrections, so if you have any that should be made, please send them to this mailing list before Tuesday. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Sun Sep 09 03:28:52 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUHDq-00057y-Er; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:28:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUHDp-00057s-LF for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:28:45 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUHDo-0006lR-EP for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:28:45 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so1649119wah for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:28:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=1RYDZJSXvcpu+A1sh5wKxGx0ZVNtcS1x0qpB5F7a3WU=; b=efLLal0VlxfXvbrnqCKWr5b9BkR1XJAdo7p5O8G89Ez34CkrvyhdFtz91Awru+6WuVv4tRDhOkfTjtGpJ2bdNHzBKKv7iaGN7pjAf+4IwH2E7JTDxLh6NyMHcC8KQ+S1ucv1fAOZj3vxXY0I+5Ddeli61gW0GHErVvWnwXsrUrw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=LGiMPTIgEiyjA6u1Ovs86nWhqDz3y1CqLU7kHGC11rA53sBcWJiNZVrfhKGvRuFjcRsQAxcCqd2jEZliPu5CjLnLA4DuOjQWNqu98DYSyXhkzUaNfGLK+7S9dSOMbgUUEL9oW8O0w3SirE0YLE035HcgU42MuDiaE9OcX3xBczM= Received: by 10.142.52.9 with SMTP id z9mr168467wfz.1189322923727; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.101.14 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1f5046a10709090028j6880d525h67f5f29c2c344e7a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 15:28:43 +0800 From: "=?GB2312?B?y++gRA==?=" To: 6lowpan@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Subject: [6lowpan] something to ask X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0611580526==" Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org --===============0611580526== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7471_15984070.1189322923713" ------=_Part_7471_15984070.1189322923713 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline hello everyone! i am a college student,and here i have a small question to ask ,which is whether IPsec can be used into WSN,and is it necessary? if you know something about it,please tell me ! thank you very much! sunyi ------=_Part_7471_15984070.1189322923713 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
hello everyone!
i am a college student,and here i have a small question to ask ,which is whether IPsec can be used into WSN,and is it necessary?
if you know something about it,please tell me !
thank you very much!
sunyi
------=_Part_7471_15984070.1189322923713-- --===============0611580526== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --===============0611580526==-- From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 20 03:53:30 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYGpY-0000Mn-8K; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:52:12 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYGpW-0000MV-37 for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:52:10 -0400 Received: from w132233.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp ([121.1.132.233] helo=mama.tanu.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYGpT-00069y-FG for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:52:07 -0400 Received: from [192.168.153.128] (cp.64translator.com [202.214.123.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mama.tanu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C9C1A7B1A; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:52:04 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <46F226A3.9000504@tanu.org> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:52:03 +0900 From: Shoichi Sakane User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070106) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?5a2Z54ea?= Subject: Re: [6lowpan] something to ask References: <1f5046a10709090028j6880d525h67f5f29c2c344e7a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1f5046a10709090028j6880d525h67f5f29c2c344e7a@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Hi, > hello everyone! > i am a college student,and here i have a small question to ask ,which is > whether IPsec can be used into WSN,and is it necessary? > if you know something about it,please tell me ! Basically, IPsec is based on IP. If you don't think that WSN require IP as its transport, IPsec is not needed. In the view point of 6lowpan, it is natural thought to use IPsec. However, key establishment mechanism should be considered. because several protocol defined in the IETF are not friendly with WSN. They would bring significant impact to WSN when you use them as is. _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 25 12:03:27 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaCs5-0006Si-9E; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:02:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaCs2-0006Pn-VX for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:02:47 -0400 Received: from web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.207.50]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaCrv-0001Cc-Qh for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:02:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 98639 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Sep 2007 16:02:24 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=WM+M+bv1bMIceH4DyEn/8VxU22zOTxPwYUMKzhmj9kOhW75SEh7J99F6+/wr/M5VCKbo+F3WKcciEnMAsqDh6XxLBmjcGyHNLeMPQE4eaou+Y/RGJ8R0qiifKr3VlKRwz2tcBGcXWmdG5HJpYH9d8ZGsZ6jDBMX9rqG3Dcufm5I=; X-YMail-OSG: 1qBcol8VM1mlDl045lIMBdKLT6EEPOxVds10ZPZ7WtEMLSQ33tnwVPwk0MX0q.3b7J4H_1QEfXH8cW2Lta_2NJcGOaIkVBmssJopvTpQ_l_TydJGFhs- Received: from [24.16.82.16] by web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:02:24 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/651.50 YahooMailWebService/0.7.134 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:02:24 -0700 (PDT) From: gabriel montenegro To: 6lowpan@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <264670.98212.qm@web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Subject: [6lowpan] RFC 4944 now available X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0550767532==" Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org --===============0550767532== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-366899633-1190736144=:98212" --0-366899633-1190736144=:98212 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt=0A --0-366899633-1190736144=:98212 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
--0-366899633-1190736144=:98212-- --===============0550767532== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan --===============0550767532==-- From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 25 12:13:44 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaD2I-0003H3-Fp; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:13:22 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaD2G-0003Gt-LI for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:13:20 -0400 Received: from grab.coslabs.com ([199.233.92.34]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaD2G-0004O9-7L for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:13:20 -0400 Received: from [199.233.92.20] (dev20.coslabs.com [199.233.92.20]) by grab.coslabs.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l8PGDJkh013835; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:13:19 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [6lowpan] RFC 4944 now available From: Geoff Mulligan To: gabriel montenegro In-Reply-To: <264670.98212.qm@web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <264670.98212.qm@web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:13:50 -0600 Message-Id: <1190736830.5691.192.camel@dellx1> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Fantastic work. And thanks to the last minute editing by Gabriel. geoff On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 09:02 -0700, gabriel montenegro wrote: > http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 25 12:19:20 2007 Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaD7r-0006la-SK; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:07 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaD7r-0006lU-0g for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:07 -0400 Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de ([2001:638:708:30c9:209:3dff:fe00:7136] helo=informatik.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaD7p-0001kx-MS for 6lowpan@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:07 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (maildrop [134.102.201.19]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l8PGIvxP009477; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:18:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <264670.98212.qm@web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <264670.98212.qm@web81913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Carsten Bormann Subject: Re: [6lowpan] RFC 4944 now available Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:18:55 +0200 To: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: Carsten Bormann X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org On Sep 25 2007, at 18:02, gabriel montenegro wrote: > http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc4944.txt Although I haven't seen the announcement from the RFC editor yet: Congratulations to the authors and to the WG as a whole. For those who have not followed why the publication of this stable document took so long: The 6lowpan format document has normative references to 2461bis and 2462bis, which ran into some delays and have been published as RFC 4861 and RFC 4862 just yesterday. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan