Subject: [6lo] IETF 101 6lo WG presentations

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:10:32 +0000

Hello presenters:

Please make sure to send your presentations to [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>  by Tuesday (3/20) noon, London time.

That will give us enough time to upload and browse through the slides.

Please, submit your presentations on-time.

Sincerely,
Your friendly co-chairs.
(Gabriel and Samita)

---

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:40 +0100

Dear WG,

We would like to provide a short report on the status and our activities
related with draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-02.

As you may recall, while we believe the document to be ready, we wanted to
implement it before proceeding further.

We had planned to implement the draft based on Raspberry Pi devices and
BlueZ. We actually enabled an RFC 7668 scenario with one device as a
master (or a 6LBR), another one as a slave (or a 6LN), and even IPv6-based
communication between the 6LN and a non-BLE interface of the 6LBR was
working well.

However, when we tried to increase the number of 6LNs per 6LBR, we
encountered the issue that communication between the 6LBR and the already
existing 6LN stopped working.

It appears that several concurrent BLE connections are not handled
correctly with BlueZ. This is a problem other people have found, and as
per the BlueZ mailing list, there is not a currently known solution.

Fortunately, we have found another basis for our implementation. Recently,
the BLEach open implementation of RFC 7668 (based on Contiki and CC2650
devices) was released (http://spoerk.github.io/contiki). It is promising,
as in fact results are shown by BLEeach authors on a scenario with one
6LBR and several 6LNs. We are currently in the process of enabling the RFC
7668
scenario based on this platform, and then we plan to modify/extend the
code in order to implement our draft.

Our plan is to have a first prototype implementation by IETF 102
(Montreal), and request to give a report in the 6Lo session of that
meeting.

Meanwhile, please let us know whether you have any comments on the draft.
And, of course, any feedback from implementation experience will be very
much appreciated!

(Note: when the I-D submission tool reopens, we will upload a new version
of the draft as "a refresher".)

Thanks!

Carles, Mahdi, Teemu

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:15:45 -0700

Thank you Carles for the implementation update of BLEmesh.
Great work in finding out and sharing the ble existing base implementations
pros and cons. That is helpful for 6lo wg and it is good to know that
Contiki now supports RFC 7668.
 -Samita

On Mar 16, 2018 4:38 AM, "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Dear WG,

Thanks!

Carles, Mahdi, Teemu

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