Subject: Re: [smartpowerdir] Pushing IPv6

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:32:44 +0100

Hi Russ,

You raised a critical point. I think that we should collectively help  
make a clear statement in the direction of IPv6 for SG.
1) Number of addresses: definitely an important aspect, even if these  
networks are not connected to the public Internet. In most SG  
networks, the number of routers/hosts is in the order of millions  
(e.g. smart metering but also primary/secondary/poletop substation  
automation).
2) Autoconf and support of stateless autoconf with v6, ...
3) SGs are mostly made of smart objects ... and all protocols  
developed at the IETF for smart objects are IPv6 protocols ! 6LoWPAN (http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/6lowpan-charter.html 
: IPv6 compression over 15.4, fragmentation and re-assembly, ...), RPL  
(http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/roll-charter.html) for routing in  
smart object networks (again for smart metering and sub-station  
automation), ... are all IPv6 protocols.

As pointed out by Sam, the level of maturity of IPv6 is some area is  
not equivalent to IPv4 but the protocols are there, vendors are  
aggressively developing v6 applications and starting with v4 is most  
definitely not the right thing to do. We need to remember that the  
scale of these networks is such that the IPv4 would unavoidably  
require complex architectures ...

Cheers.

JP.

On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

> ARIN has sent NIST a message saying that it is not possible to get  
> enough IPv4 addresses to support SmartGrid.  However, the NIST  
> document does not include a statement of preference for IPv6.  How  
> can we make that happen
>
> Russ
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:25:23 -0800

My understanding is that politics within the SGIP precluded them from  
saying that. One thing we should do is get a better handle on those  
politics; I suspect that the Enernex consultant is not completely  
unbiased (he champions the idea that the grid has "points of  
interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than general  
communications interoperability), and there are probably others who  
even if they are up for general use of IP would like to use the IP  
that they have deployed.

> document does not include a statement of preference for IPv6.  How  

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

---

From: Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:08:32 -0500

Fred,

In your note you use the acronym IP twice. Is the first use Internet  
Protocol and the second Intellectual Property?

I will make the point in the SGIPGB that if IP is going to be used, it  
is foolish not to use IPv6 even if one needs to have a device in the  
home that speaks IPv6 to all the appliances and sensors and IPv4 (and  
IPv6) to the outside world for convenience in the near term.

vint

On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:25 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> My understanding is that politics within the SGIP precluded them  
> from saying that. One thing we should do is get a better handle on  
> those politics; I suspect that the Enernex consultant is not  
> completely unbiased (he champions the idea that the grid has "points  
> of interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than general

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:02:35 -0800

In my mind, "IP" is the "Internet Protocol", of which we have two  
versions. Various IEC standards tunnel one thing or another through  
UDP/IPv4 or TCP/IPv4; none of them use IPv6. That is two of the issues  
thta have to be handled - native, not tunnel, and permit IPv6.

"...even if they are up for general use of [some Internet Protocol]  
would like to use the [IPv4, which] they have deployed."

On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:08 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> I will make the point in the SGIPGB that if IP is going to be used,  
> it is foolish not to use IPv6 even if one needs to have a device in  
> the home that speaks IPv6 to all the appliances and sensors and IPv4  
> (and IPv6) to the outside world for convenience in the near term.
>
> vint
>
>
>> completely unbiased (he champions the idea that the grid has  
>> "points of interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than general

---

From: Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:04:12 -0500

ack and agree.

v

On Feb 14, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> UDP/IPv4 or TCP/IPv4; none of them use IPv6. That is two of the  
> issues thta have to be handled - native, not tunnel, and permit IPv6.
>
>> In your note you use the acronym IP twice. Is the first use  
>> Internet Protocol and the second Intellectual Property?
>>
>> the home that speaks IPv6 to all the appliances and sensors and  
>> IPv4 (and IPv6) to the outside world for convenience in the near  
>> term.
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>>> "points of interoperability" aka gateways in it rather than  
>>> general communications interoperability), and there are probably  
>>> others who even if they are up for general use of IP would like to  
>>> use the IP that they have deployed.
>>>
>>>> ARIN has sent NIST a message saying that it is not possible to  
>>>> get enough IPv4 addresses to support SmartGrid.  However, the  
>>>> NIST document does not include a statement of preference for  
>>>> IPv6.  How can we make that happen
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>