Re: Possible 6LoWPAN dispatch type deprecation and re-use for route over purposes

[Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for calling the attention of the IETF to the use of the 6LoWPAN mesh-under dispatch code in G3-PLC.

The formal method for providing information like this to the IETF is through a Liaison Statement from the relevant standards organization (perhaps G3-PLC Alliance in this case?) submitted at http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/add/?incoming

It would be helpful to include explicit reference(s) to text in specifications that define the use of the 6LoWPAN dispatch header (https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml).

- Ralph Droms

  Member, IAB

On Apr 28, 2015, at 5:07 AM, Thierry LYS <thierry.lys@xxxxxxx> wrote:

   Dear Michael, Ines, Samita, Gabriel, Pascal, Thomas,


We recently discovered that there are ongoing discussions to re-use the 6LoWPAN dispatch type assigned by IANA for Mesh-Under routing (as specified in RFC 4944) for Route-Over purposes.

As one of the biggest 6LoWPAN network operators (35 million smart meters to be deployed in France - first deployments have started) and considering other massive roll-outs on progress in Asia with the G3-PLC technology (using the 6LoWPAN/IPv6 mechanisms), we are deeply concerned by the deprecation of this dispatch type with respect to the sustainablility of the IPv6 framework considering potential long-term evolutions in our IP telco architecture. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the lifespan of smart meters (minimum of 20 years - garanteed by the manufacturer), and more generally smart grid connected devices, are not to be compared with the much shorter lifespans of consumer electronics.

We strongly disagree with making any modifications endangering backwards compatibility with already deployed 6LoWPAN/IPv6 systems and hope that IETF will discourage this as well.
We suggest that one of the alternate solutions, already proposed by the interested parties, should be prefered (as the overhead generated is comparable).


Thank you very much for your consideration,

Best regards,


Thierry Lys, Cédric Chauvenet and Cédric Lavenu


>We're also sending this email to ietf@xxxxxxxx as it doesn't immediately appear clear where to discuss this, as there are many possible WGs that might be relevant, but also that this concerns deprecation of IANA allocations which have been made through IETF consensus, making this list possibly relevant.
> G3-PLC protocol is also known as Recommendation ITU-T G.9903 (available for download on ITU web site)

<mime-attachment.gif>

Thierry Lys Metering Division Building Crysalis - 345 Avenue Georges Clémenceau - 92000 Nanterre - France Tel : +33 (0)1 81 97 67 77