Hi Emmanuel,
I think if route over protocols are to adhere to RFC 5889, much more work
needs to go into making ULAs useful.
For our project we used:6LoWPAN (RFC 4944), 6LoWPAN-ND (RFC 6775), ROLL
RPL (RFC 650), mDNS (RFC 6762) with some extensions to use ULAs (among
others) and I can say
in the ROLL WG, amongst others Rob Caigie and Don
Sturek, were interested in the topic of multi-link subnets and the
related multicast scope for MPL / for IPv6 in general [1].
This is an important technical topic and deserves due discussion on
this mailing list and 6man.
I think that both discussions
Note I changed the title on the thread..
My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it
solves the problem simply by saying don't allocate link locals. The
issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of
link locals).
Some questions:
1)
Hi Tim,
Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Alliance Core Stack Group which developed
ZigBee IP in support of Smart Energy Profile 2.0.
Here is a synopsis of the requirements:
1) Support Resource Discovery over a topology that includes Wi-Fi,
HomePlug AV and GP and ZigBee IP (ZigBee IP is a multi
configured on the host),
the first 'n' bits of the IPv6 source address match the first
'n' bits of the prefix address, where 'n' is the length of the
prefix being considered.
Don
On 7/25/13 2:36 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net
, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Jul 25, 2013, at 22:09, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it
solves the problem simply by saying don't allocate link locals. The
issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS
Hi Michael,
I mispoke on the last point. Should have read:multi-link subnets
versus allocating a /128
Don
On 7/25/13 3:07 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
We did a good bit of work on the mDNS topic and there are quite a
few
Hi Ulrich,
I did review the you cited in your earlier e-mail (RFC 5889). It seems
that RFC suggests that link local addresses not be generated for
interfaces with undetermined link characteristics (which certainly apply
to route over protocols like ROLL RPL and the MANET protocols).
However,
We (the ZigBee Alliance) will request a port number to use with MLE.
After discussion this week at the ZigBee Alliance members meeting, we will
follow the AD sponsored draft route. We will elicit input from as many
related IETF WG's who might be interested in MLE We look forward to
comments
All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will
opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application)
Don
On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that
MLE
Hi Thomas (and Michael),
I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written carefully
to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we
are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing)
and I think many others will find the information
Hi Michael,
We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP will
take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue if there
are additional information exchanges needed using MLE.
While the ZigBee Alliance is using ROLL RPL and 6LoWPAN, the information
exchanged
Hi Carsten,
I answered a similar note privately from Michael. Let me share part of
that here for everyone:
.. (part of note to Michael deleted)...
We are just sharing our experience of now 2 years of monthly interops
using 6LoWPAN, ROLL RPL, PANA and now MLE. Many of us
be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to
discuss it.
-- Mitchell's Law of Committees
On 15 Jun 2012, at 01:43, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so
will
opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application
On 6/15/12 7:30 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Don == Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net writes:
Don We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE.
ICMP will
Don take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue
if there
Don are additional
Hi Thomas,
I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard:
That is from memory, am I correct?)
Don
On 6/15/12 9:28 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen i...@thomasclausen.org wrote:
On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote:
Hi Thomas (and Michael),
I
Hi Michael,
Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Core Stack working group (our group is
standarding ZigBee IP which is a configured collection of IETF drafts
supporting the Smart Energy Profile 2.0 over IEEE802.15.4)
It is our group who are looking to standardize MLE (in your note below
Hi Tim,
One more consideration:
In the home, it is possible that multiple independent subnets could be
combined, each with their own ULA prefix. This would happen in cases
where the homeowner buys multiple silo'ed solutions (like a home
automation system, Wi-Fi AP with connected MACs/Pcs, etc)
) for the past several months with these drafts so have data to share
on our experience.
Thanks,
Don Sturek
Chair, ZigBee Core Stack Working Group (responsible for ZigBee IP
application profile targeting Smart Energy 2)
IETF
Would you like an abstracted test report to the reflector instead?
Don
Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas,
On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Fred Baker f...@cisco.com writes:
When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons
related to
Hi Brian,
Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Alliance IPv6 standardization.
We are using both the drafts (draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers and
draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header) for our interoperability testing. Here
is some background:
1) We have 9 implementing companies all doing non-storing ROLL
comments on
who tested, and what the outcome of the testing was after we (yes, I was
there, while working at ACC) all fixed our bugs.
It would be very helpful if you could, with the implementors in question,
filed a report on the testing.
On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Don Sturek wrote:
Hi Brian,
Don
+1 on adopting the two RPL drafts.
Don
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 1:17 PM
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and
23 matches
Mail list logo
