[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

om: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:17 AM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity On Wednesday 25 March 2015 19:26:16 ??? wrote: > Hi Thiago, Hi Uze > I?m not sure whether we a

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Thursday 26 March 2015 10:22:11 ??? wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > I got your idea, "If the developer does not specify the adapter type, you > want to use the priority list." OK. Then, we have three connectivity as of > now. > Could you share the priority of your mind? > Order as like 1)WiFi 2)BT 3)BL

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

: Thiago Macieira; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Hi Thiago, It would be good practice to document (email/wiki/jira/...) the arguments (use cases/assumptions) that lead to the decisions we make (expose interface/...) so one can verify the vali

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201503251730756_05W5Y5W7.png Type: image/png Size: 65706 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Wednesday 25 March 2015 19:26:16 ??? wrote: > Hi Thiago, Hi Uze > I?m not sure whether we are communicating correctly, so let me clarify for > your response. > > If you feel there is any discrepancy from my understanding, let me know. > > > So I agree with Uze's proposal: > > You agree with

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

iotivity already have a preferred place for this? Thank you, Stephane. Original message From: Thiago Macieira Date:25/03/2015 05:21 (GMT+01:00) To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity On Tuesday 24 March 2015 10:41:10 Thiago Macieira

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

; Macieira, Thiago; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: RE: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Dear Pat. I attached the file. And, I added the comment inline. MJ. Best Regards. --- Original Message --- Sender : Lankswert, Patrickmailto:patrick.lankswert at intel.com

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Tuesday 24 March 2015 10:41:10 Thiago Macieira wrote: > The framework should allow the application to create either a whitelist or > a blacklist of adapters (not both) to operate on. This should allow > routers to disable the port connected to the Internet and thus reduce the > attack surface f

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

look deterministic. BR, Uze Choi -Original Message- From: Kesavan, Vijay S [mailto:vijay.s.kesa...@intel.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:10 PM To: Macieira, Thiago; ??? (uzchoi at samsung.com) Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Uze - pe

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Tuesday 24 March 2015 17:52:37 ??? wrote: > Hi Vijay/Thiago, Hi uze > > If there is very smart logic to decide the appropriate adaptor, it could be > best. > However, framework cannot know which connectivity adaptor is appropriate > for anonymous application. I think in most cases we can mak

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201503241534818_DIE6RD1W.png Type: image/png Size: 65706 bytes Desc: not avai

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 1:58 AM To: Light, John J; Kesavan, Vijay S; Macieira, Thiago; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Hi

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

Uze - perhaps you are in the best position to address Thiago's question on why the services require adaptor type (see below). --Vijay > The current CA code mainly focusses on item 1, some limited support > for 2, and no support for 3. > > The current APIs only support one adaptor of each adapto

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

at gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, 20 March, 2015 8:33 AM *To:* Thiago Macieira *Cc:* Stephane Lejeune (stlejeun); iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org *Subject:* Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Funny discussion...afaik most OS has IPv6 stack and users can enable this interface whenever necessary.

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Monday 23 March 2015 08:27:35 ??? wrote: > Denial, > > Since the version of Lite devices may vary, IoTivity should be able to > support both the IPv4 & IPv6 as Thiago commented. Hello Jay IoTivity should support both. However, I would insist that we require the presence of the IPv6 API in a

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Monday 23 March 2015 07:46:42 Daniel Park wrote: > From the constraint device perspective, as of now IPv6 seems to me a > mandatory feature in their architecture and in particular there are good > protocol sets being developed by IETF such as IPv6 over IEEE802.15.4(e), > BLT, NFC and so on. IETF

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

ht, John J; Macieira, Thiago; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity John, I agree that there will be platforms with multiple interfaces (some interfaces of the same type) and the eventual goal of Iotivity should be to support such platforms. The first mode

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

essage- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 11:58 AM To: Kesavan, Vijay S Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity On Friday 20 March 2015 11:00:43

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Vijay, Since Thiago is traveling, I will take a shot at answering this. The distinction between adapter types is neither necessary nor sufficient, and it will degrade our software quality. The reason it is not necessary is that the

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

type. --Vijay -Original Message- From: Macieira, Thiago Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:48 PM To: Kesavan, Vijay S Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity On Wednesday 18 March 2015 08:22:06 Kesavan, Vijay S wrote: > " whether the distin

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

Funny discussion...afaik most OS has IPv6 stack and users can enable this interface whenever necessary. But the limitation of IPv6 deployment until now is lack of use cases even if IPv6 has lots of good features against IPv4. So what sorts of use cases are you guys considering with IPv6 mandatory

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Friday 20 March 2015 12:54:14 Light, John J wrote: > I'm sure Thiago understands this is not what I suggest or propose. "Dual > stack" is a current term of art in the IPv6 community referring to the best > means of managing the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The first Google > response to "IPv6

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

Hi Daniel, St?phane On Friday 20 March 2015 10:44:11 Stephane Lejeune wrote: > Another use case is when I am running in the woods (no ISP infrastructure) > with all my constrained battery powered wearables connected to my smart > watch. Ipv6 SLAAC would be a very handy feature I would not be able

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Friday 20 March 2015 11:00:43 Kesavan, Vijay S wrote: > Thiago, Hi Vijay > With regards to your comments, perhaps it will help clarifying some of the > initial goals of CA. CA, which sits below the resource model layer, is > intended to: Indeed, clarification seems to be in order. Is there

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

, ?) I hope this clarifies, Stephane. From: Daniel Park [mailto:sooho...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 20 March, 2015 8:33 AM To: Thiago Macieira Cc: Stephane Lejeune (stlejeun); iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Funny discussion...afaik most OS has IPv6 stack

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

HTML ?? ??... URL: -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201503201109975_XOK0LK7C.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Desc: ?? ?? ???

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Wednesday 18 March 2015 08:22:06 Kesavan, Vijay S wrote: > " whether the distinction between Ethernet and WiFi makes sense at all. Your > work proves that it doesn't, so I'd like to see the distinction removed > from the connectivity abstraction branch." > > Wondering if you are asking about th

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

To: Macieira, Thiago; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Thiago, With regards to your comment: " whether the distinction between Ethernet and WiFi makes sense at all. Your work proves that it doesn't, so I'd like to see the distinc

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

Thiago, With regards to your comment: " whether the distinction between Ethernet and WiFi makes sense at all. Your work proves that it doesn't, so I'd like to see the distinction removed from the connectivity abstraction branch." Wondering if you are asking about the distinction between Ether

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

rch, 2015 5:30 PM > To: Stephane Lejeune (stlejeun); iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity > > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 14:19:40 Stephane Lejeune wrote: > > Hi Thiago, > > My point is, do we need the complexity of dual stack (discove

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

hane. From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org> [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Light, John J Sent: Monday, 16 March, 2015 7:18 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivit

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 17:27:22 Stephane Lejeune wrote: > Is the issue with the IPv6 maturity in FreeBSD or just with the default > config? (Could this be enabled as part of the iotivity app/package > installation?) Just the default config. One line in /etc/rc.conf and it turned back on. The po

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

John J Sent: Monday, 16 March, 2015 7:18 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity We have completed the first phase of changes to support IPv6 in Iotivity. They will soon be pushed to the ca-ipv6 branch (branch of connectivity-abstraction branch). I

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 14:19:40 Stephane Lejeune wrote: > Hi Thiago, > My point is, do we need the complexity of dual stack (discovery, bridging, > ...) for in home OIC devices or can we just live with IPv6 only. I opt for > the second, every device can and should do IPv6 only in the home ... way

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 12:21:45 Stephane Lejeune wrote: > Hi John, > > This is a great achievement! > Is there any iotivity target platform under consideration today(/or planned) > that doesn't have an IPv6 stack? Shouldn't all Linux-based systems simply have it by default? There's nothing the

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

We have completed the first phase of changes to support IPv6 in Iotivity. They will soon be pushed to the ca-ipv6 branch (branch of connectivity-abstraction branch). In the meantime, a document that describes the extent of the changes is attached to this message. The first phase has concentra

[dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity

On Monday 16 March 2015 18:17:30 Light, John J wrote: > We have completed the first phase of changes to support IPv6 in Iotivity. > They will soon be pushed to the ca-ipv6 branch (branch of > connectivity-abstraction branch). Hi John Thanks for posting this and for the effort in getting IPv6 up