Hi all,
it would be nice to have a stronger position wether it is a guidance or
requirement doc. The point is the authority to which manufacturers refer
to prove that their nodes are IPv6 capable is not RFC4294 but the IPv6
ready logo program. the IPv6 ready certification also does not follow
Dear all,
last week was released uIPv6, an IPv6 host implementation for very
constrained device (http://www.sics.se/contiki).
uIPv6 holds on 11K of flash, and a minimum of 1.8K of RAM (3K with IP
fragmentation support)
We learnt from the implementation that a few IPv6 mandated features are
Hi all,
My fear is that if implementations on e.g. sensors show that IPSec is not
affordable for this kind of device, and we put an unconditional MUST, in a few
years from now we will have billions of device which do not respect RFC4294.
With a SHOULD it is the same kind of issue, billions of
Hi John,
To clarify:
- I was talking of sensors immplementing some IPv6
- It means companies would not care about this RFC
Julien
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mercredi 27 février 2008 14:44
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille); [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi all,
To come back to constrained device, as I already mentionned on the list within
6lowpan, we are working on a draft which documents the cost of each feature
mandated by RFC4294, from an implementation perspective (target platform is
8bit microcontroller, few 10K ROM, few K RAM). I guess
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 20:13
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: RE: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement
within 6man
Cheers,
Julien
-Original Message-
From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 11:47
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille)
Subject: Re: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement
Hi Julien,
As you stress on lightweight, I would like to stress
A sensor can only sense..., you are talking about a light actuator.
Julien
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 12:00
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Brian,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Julien
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 12:46
To: Ed Jankiewicz
Cc: Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: the role of the node requirements document
2008 13:24
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille); Thomas Narten
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org;
Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: RE: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement
On the contrary some of the laser sensing capabilities now could be considered
light
, i.e. if a node wants to implement security at IP
layer, it must use RFCxyz...
This might be my 6lowpan view however.
Julien
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 14:35
To: Julien Abeille (jabeille)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject
11 matches
Mail list logo
