Subject: [6lo] 6lo use cases: draft-hong-6lo-use-cases-01

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:20:16 -0400

I scanned the document quickly during the presentation today.

It seems like it might be a useful document to have;
I'm thinking that 6lowpan maybe already did such a thing? If so, it's old.

If the purpose is to market/educate outsiders then I see the point, and let's
do that.  We regularily don't explain ourselves well enough.  This document
should be augmented with a set of slides that explain (in pictures) the
deployment scenarios indicated.  I would find that useful when I explain
things to outsiders if I can find pictures and diagrams for technologies
which I'm not otherwise intimate with.

(If it's just for us, then I don't think it's useful as is)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Yong-Geun Hong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:14:49 +0900

Dear Michael.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

I totally agree your comments and it is aligned with other comments in the
6lo WG meeting today.

I will keep in mind your comments and try to revise the document as you
pointed.

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:58:36 +0000

Hi Michael,

Right -- this document is about giving a bit details on different 6lowpan deployment scenarios for different types of 6lo L2 technologies.
The purpose is to give ideas to folks outside 6lo WG (internally and externally) about how 6lowpan stacks could be used on multiple technologies and their respective deployments so if any new technologies/deployment consider 6lo stack as their option they can get some information.

The previous 6lowpan usecase document exists but it is a high-level application targeting for 802.15.4 technology .

We will arrange some calls in the near future to discuss more input as to how to organize this document for communicating about 6lo applicability over different deployments.

Thanks,
-Samita
-----Original Message-----
From: 6lo [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 3:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lo] 6lo use cases: draft-hong-6lo-use-cases-01

It seems like it might be a useful document to have; I'm thinking that 6lowpan maybe already did such a thing? If so, it's old.

If the purpose is to market/educate outsiders then I see the point, and let's do that.  We regularily don't explain ourselves well enough.  This document should be augmented with a set of slides that explain (in pictures) the deployment scenarios indicated.  I would find that useful when I explain things to outsiders if I can find pictures and diagrams for technologies which I'm not otherwise intimate with.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Sandra Céspedes U. <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:31:04 -0300

Dear Yong-Geun

I have a comment regarding this draft:

It seems to me that all the use cases presented in the document are for 
"short-range" technologies, that would easily follow in the PAN 
category. Although most of the current work done in 6lo concentrates in 
such technologies, there is no limitation in the scope that indicates 
that low-power wide area technologies cannot be considered. I'm 
referring to technologies that were discussed during the LP-WAN BOF 
(they even have a shared file with an initial list of technologies in 
goo.gl/S3uSPU 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7cXN4_VuI8imy8MG3-fHjl9FNiNvYfdB4txN4hDQ-w/edit#heading=h.g3u16990965f>). 

Why aren't we looking into those technologies as 6lo use-cases? I 
suggest that if not all the technologies, some examples should relate to 
LP-WAN technologies, since they are also restricted networks (some argue 
that even more constrained than Low-PAN technologies) and also need 
IPv6-over-foo definitions.

Looking forward to your opinion.

Regards,
Sandra Céspedes

On 07-04-2016 22:14, Yong-Geun Hong wrote:
> I totally agree your comments and it is aligned with other comments in 
> the 6lo WG meeting today.
>
> I will keep in mind your comments and try to revise the document as 
> you pointed.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Yong-Geun.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Michael Richardson <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Sandelman Software Works
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 

Sandra L. Céspedes, Ph.D. | Profesora Asistente
Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica
Universidad de Chile
Av. Tupper 2007, Santiago, Chile. 8370451
Tel. +56 (2) 29784093 | Of. 504
URL:http://www.cec.uchile.cl/~scespedes <http://www.cec.uchile.cl/%7Escespedes>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

---

From: Yong-Geun Hong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:11:46 +0900

Dear Sandra.

Thanks for your comments.

I agree your comments. At the LP-WAN BoF, I was also there.

In the 6lo use cases document, we tried to describe the use cases that are
related to IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes. I am not sure
how the current LP-WAN technologies are related to IPv6 and 6lo
technologies.

In the next revision, we will look at the LP-WAN technologies more detail
and try to include the LP-WAN technologies.

If you have related contents, it is appreciate to help.

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Sandra Céspedes U. <[email-masked]

> "short-range" technologies, that would easily follow in the PAN category.
> Although most of the current work done in 6lo concentrates in such
> technologies, there is no limitation in the scope that indicates that
> low-power wide area technologies cannot be considered. I'm referring to
> technologies that were discussed during the LP-WAN BOF (they even have a
> shared file with an initial list of technologies in goo.gl/S3uSPU
> Why aren't we looking into those technologies as 6lo use-cases? I suggest
> that if not all the technologies, some examples should relate to LP-WAN
> technologies, since they are also restricted networks (some argue that even
> more constrained than Low-PAN technologies) and also need IPv6-over-foo
> definitions.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson <
> <[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
> 6lo mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>
>
>
> --
>
> URL: http://www.cec.uchile.cl/~scespedes
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>

---

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:16:43 +0200

Hi Yong-Geun, Sandra,

Please see some inline comments, below.

> how the current LP-WAN technologies are related to IPv6 and 6lo

An analysis of IPv6 over LPWAN can be found here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00
(This draft will be updated before Berlin...)

There is also a section on the topic here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis-01

Sandra's comment touches an important point, that is: which is (or should
be) the scope of the "6lo use cases" draft?

The "6lo use cases" document may include a wider set of technologies than
the current "6lo" ones. Then it would transform into a "6lo" and "lpwan"
use cases document. I wonder if this document (currently homed in the 6lo
WG) would then potentially focus on work carried out in more than one WG. 
 I personally would have no problem with that, but coordination between
the involved WGs would be needed, and it would be good to know the chairs'
opinion on this. (Note that an IETF WG focusing on LPWAN does not yet
exist, but efforts to create such a WG have already started.)

On the other hand, for the most challenged LPWAN setups/technologies,
functionality beyond what is currently used in 6lo is actually needed to
support IPv6 over LPWAN [draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis]. In fact, many
LPWANs fall in the challenged networks category
[draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis]. As of today, the mechanisms for
supporting IPv6 over LPWANs are in their early stages in the best case...
So today it is already possible to include some example LPWAN technologies
and use cases in the document, but we'll have to wait a little bit to see
how IPv6 is supported over them.

What does the WG think?

Thanks!

Carles

>> category.
>> suggest
>> the
>> Virus-free.

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:58:44 +0000

Hi Carles,

You have made some good points on 6lo and LPWAN.

However, as of today, the focus of this use-case document on the usecases that are running IPv6/6lowpan stack today or potentially can run on to others. For example, 6lowpan stack with modifications can run on 802.11  networks in the future or in LPWAN. Now with ethertype IDs  etc. the potential is higher.

The idea of the usecase document is to give examples of existing 6lo implementations/drafts/RFC and deployments.  And at the same time provide a few examples on other technologies (ex. LPWAN or some other ) which might be applicable for running the basics of the stack or at least evaluate running 6lo stack.

The scope of 6lo is about running IPv6 on constrained node devices -- started with WPAN,  but could be applicable to WLAN or WAN. Thus it is fine to work on the usecases here and then apply to specific SDOs. [ This is my personal view]

Thanks,
-Samita

-----Original Message-----
From: 6lo [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:17 AM
To: Yong-Geun Hong
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; "Sandra Céspedes U."
Subject: Re: [6lo] 6lo use cases: draft-hong-6lo-use-cases-01

Hi Yong-Geun, Sandra,

> In the 6lo use cases document, we tried to describe the use cases that 
> are related to IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes. I am 
> not sure how the current LP-WAN technologies are related to IPv6 and 
> 6lo technologies.

The "6lo use cases" document may include a wider set of technologies than the current "6lo" ones. Then it would transform into a "6lo" and "lpwan"
use cases document. I wonder if this document (currently homed in the 6lo
WG) would then potentially focus on work carried out in more than one WG. 
 I personally would have no problem with that, but coordination between the involved WGs would be needed, and it would be good to know the chairs'
opinion on this. (Note that an IETF WG focusing on LPWAN does not yet exist, but efforts to create such a WG have already started.)

On the other hand, for the most challenged LPWAN setups/technologies, functionality beyond what is currently used in 6lo is actually needed to support IPv6 over LPWAN [draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis]. In fact, many LPWANs fall in the challenged networks category [draft-minaburo-lp-wan-gap-analysis]. As of today, the mechanisms for supporting IPv6 over LPWANs are in their early stages in the best case...
So today it is already possible to include some example LPWAN technologies and use cases in the document, but we'll have to wait a little bit to see how IPv6 is supported over them.

What does the WG think?

Thanks!

Carles

> In the next revision, we will look at the LP-WAN technologies more 
> detail and try to include the LP-WAN technologies.
>
>> It seems to me that all the use cases presented in the document are 
>> for "short-range" technologies, that would easily follow in the PAN 
>> category.
>> low-power wide area technologies cannot be considered. I'm referring 
>> to technologies that were discussed during the LP-WAN BOF (they even 
>> have a shared file with an initial list of technologies in 
>> goo.gl/S3uSPU <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7cXN4_VuI8imy8MG3-fHjl9FNiNvYfdB4txN4hDQ-w/edit#heading=h.g3u16990965f>).
>>
>>
>> suggest that if not all the technologies, some examples should relate 
>> to LP-WAN technologies, since they are also restricted networks (some 
>> argue that even more constrained than Low-PAN technologies) and also 
>> need IPv6-over-foo definitions.
>>
>> I totally agree your comments and it is aligned with other comments 
>> in the 6lo WG meeting today.
>>
>>> It seems like it might be a useful document to have; I'm thinking 
>>> that 6lowpan maybe already did such a thing? If so, it's old.
>>>
>>> If the purpose is to market/educate outsiders then I see the point, 
>>> and let's do that.  We regularily don't explain ourselves well 
>>> enough.  This document should be augmented with a set of slides that 
>>> explain (in pictures) the deployment scenarios indicated.  I would 
>>> find that useful when I explain things to outsiders if I can find 
>>> pictures and diagrams for technologies which I'm not otherwise 
>>> intimate with.
>>>
>> Sandra L. Céspedes, Ph.D. | Profesora Asistente Departamento de 
>> Ingeniería Eléctrica Universidad de Chile Av. Tupper 2007, 
>> Santiago, Chile. 8370451 Tel. +56 (2) 29784093 | Of. 504
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm
>> _campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm
>> _campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>