 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Arul- See my previous comments. The DoD have already defined those requirements. In fact, JITC has certified a few tape libraries already. See here: http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6.html 01010011 01100101 01101101 01110000 01100101 01110010 01000110 01101001 Jeremy Duncan Joint Interoperability Test Command IPv6 Test and Evaluation ManTech Telecommunications & Information Systems Office: 703-814-8384 Cell: 520-226-1789 __________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Arul Kumar Chellappan [mailto:arulkumar.chellappan at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:07 PM To: Julien Abeillé Cc: 6man; Mathilde Durvy; Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur); Mikko Saarnivala; Dominik Kaspar; Eunsook Kim; 6lowpan; qkim at etri.re.kr Subject: Re: ipv6 requirements for a sensor/constrained device Dear Julien, Just putting my thoughts and comments are welcome. I had an opportunity tFrom ipv6-bounces at ietf.org Fri Jan 18 10:42:50 2008 Return-path: <ipv6-bounces at ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFtLQ-0000Mn-Nu; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:41:24 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFYL8-0004QV-Ky for ipv6 at ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:15:42 -0500 Received: from clyde.disa.mil ([164.117.144.159]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFYL8-0006pj-3A for ipv6 at ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:15:42 -0500 Received: from maine.disanet.disa-u.mil ([164.117.144.160]) by clyde.disa.mil with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:15:41 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:15:32 -0500 Message-ID: <ECE9798F8C0FAC4B936294D0949410FF449C37 at maine.disanet.disa-u.mil> In-Reply-To: <5cfbd2e10801170906h7e8bb25eo2fd4820f77f9ecc2 at mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ipv6 requirements for a sensor/constrained device (UNCLASSIFIED) thread-index: AchZK7c8FHIhTNiZRHeZ3N2UhWIqNwAADq2g References: <478E157C.207 at cisco.com> <5cfbd2e10801170906h7e8bb25eo2fd4820f77f9ecc2 at mail.gmail.com> From: "Duncan, Richard J CTR DISA JITC" <richard.duncan.ctr at disa.mil> To: "Arul Kumar Chellappan" <arulkumar.chellappan at gmail.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julien_Abeillé?= <jabeille at cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2008 17:15:41.0150 (UTC) FILETIME=[9615BFE0:01C8592C] X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 1e467ff145ef391eb7b594ef62b8301f X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:41:22 -0500 Cc: qkim at etri.re.kr, 6man <ipv6 at ietf.org>, Mathilde Durvy <mdurvy at cisco.com>, Mikko Saarnivala <mikko.saarnivala at sensinode.com>, Dominik Kaspar <dokaspar.ietf at gmail.com>, Eunsook Kim <eunah.ietf at gmail.com>, 6lowpan <6lowpan at lists.ietf.org>, "Jean Philippe Vasseur \(jvasseur\)" <jvasseur at cisco.com> Subject: RE: ipv6 requirements for a sensor/constrained device (UNCLASSIFIED) X-BeenThere: ipv6 at ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <mailto:ipv6 at ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==============05284508==" Errors-To: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Arul- See my previous comments. The DoD have already defined those requirements. In fact, JITC has certified a few tape libraries already. See here: http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/ipv6.html 01010011 01100101 01101101 01110000 01100101 01110010 01000110 01101001 Jeremy Duncan Joint Interoperability Test Command IPv6 Test and Evaluation ManTech Telecommunications & Information Systems Office: 703-814-8384 Cell: 520-226-1789 __________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Arul Kumar Chellappan [mailto:arulkumar.chellappan at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:07 PM To: Julien Abeillé Cc: 6man; Mathilde Durvy; Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur); Mikko Saarnivala; Dominik Kaspar; Eunsook Kim; 6lowpan; qkim at etri.re.kr Subject: Re: ipv6 requirements for a sensor/constrained device Dear Julien, Just putting my thoughts and comments are welcome. I had an opportunity to work on providing IPv6 capability for a tape library appliance. We were unable to strongly conclude the needed IPv6 requirements for that box. The main requirement for a IPv6 node is stateless auto configuration and the optional functionalities are stateful auto configuration and gateway configuration. Based on the level of IPv6 functionality a device needs, the IPv6 requirements increase. If the device needs the IPv6 just for the point to point (master-slave) communication, then just the link local address would be sufficient and I guess the auto config of a global address is not needed. Hence from my thoughts, the workgroup could first define the minimum and maximum IPv6 functionalities of the a constrained device. This would help device makers to classify whether the IPv6 capable device that is being developed is a constrained device or a fully capable IPv6 node, and accordingly choose the needed functionalities. Regards, Arul Kumar C -~- On 1/16/08, Julien Abeillé <jabeille at cisco.com> wrote: Hi all, as a follow up of discussions around 6lowpan and ISA100 standardization, the people in cc and myself are starting an effort to identify minimum ipv6 requirements for a constrained device ( e.g. a sensor), so that ipv6 can be brought to such device. This work would be closely bound to implementation experiments. This has been discussed a bit within 6lowpan and I know a thread was started in 6man around RFC4294 update. What we would like to clarify is how this work could fit in IETF, in which WG, with whom, as well as the scope and process for this effort. We would appreciate your feedback on this topic. Best regards, Julien Abeille -- Julien Abeille Software Engineer Technology Center jabeille at cisco.com Phone: +41 21 822 1696 Mobile: +41 79 617 8881 Fax: +41 21 822 1604 Cisco Systems International Sarl Avenue des Uttins 5 1180 Rolle Switzerland (FR) Cisco home page <http://www.cisco.com/> Think before you print. Think before you print. This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6 at ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> -------------------------------------------------------------------- Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6 at ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------