The use case that led me to start some of this discussion was that of using Information Centric Networking in emergency situations.
A key observation that many have made is that backup/emergency systems need constant maintenance and testing, and if they aren't used regularly then they tend to rot. This leads to the view that if a converged network can be made resilient enough to be used during emergencies, then there are a number of advantages: a) it probably has more than enough capacity for the emergency traffic! b) if it breaks, then someone will notice, and there is an incentive to fix it c) many situations which aren't full on emergencies benefit from the resiliency I looked through some documents, such as: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7945.html#section-3 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8884.html Research Directions for Using Information-Centric Networking (ICN) in Disaster Scenarios Read the requirements at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8884.html#section-3.3 and compare them to what GRASP offers? In thinking about building automation IoT systems, the ICN approach is rather useful. In it, one does not tell a light switch which light bulbs to control, but rather tells a light bulb what senses should be relevant to it. The sensors then simply announce their state, and the bulbs respond. In a converged building network, where there might be many hundred Gb/s of bandwidth for the tenants to use, the sensor network could be accomodated by a series of gateways which translate between 802.15.4 radios or BACnet, and a fiber-optic backbone. But the control network needs to be protected from the rest of the traffic, and isn't that what the ACP does? Is there that much difference between learning that an optical module has gone bad via SNMP/NETCONF over ACP, and learning that the elevator door is damaged and won't close, so elevator 14 is out of service, over BACnet? (Could the two be related?) So in the view that the resiliency of the control network must be continuously be tested, then the right answer is to use the control (ACP) network for all the automation functions. Of course we can run DTLS for MQTT and the like over the ACP, and for many things we probably should do that, but we also need all the caching and flooding mechanisms that GRASP offers. (particularly during a flood. Hmm. Some kind of RFC2616-like RFC about new M_FLOOD objectives for use during a flood ....) -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
