From hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net Mon Dec 26 01:05:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE3921F8ACC for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:05:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GHQUvFZqYvrZ for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B6E121F8AD2 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2011 09:04:58 -0000 Received: from a88-115-216-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.100.107]) [88.115.216.191] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 26 Dec 2011 10:04:58 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/+/F0tYdv+eBpV3oz8CnYbUwrny81lMAJUnLIwV4 fc7f13qHLhKJQM Message-ID: <4EF838B7.8040908@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:04:55 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vinayak Hegde References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: ietf@ietf.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [arch-d] Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet - Technical Plenary at IETF 82, Taipei X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:05:10 -0000 Hi Vinayak, I don't remember three papers but the second paper that was mentioned was Estrin, D., Govindan, R., Heidemann, J., Kumar, S., "Next Century Challenges: Scalable Coordination in Sensor Networks" Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networks (MobiCOM'99), Seattle, Washington, pps. 263-270, August 15-20, 1999. Here is the link to the paper: http://research.cens.ucla.edu/people/estrin/resources/conferences/1999aug-Govindan-Estrin-Next.pdf The "IP is Dead, Long Live IP for Wireless Sensor Networks" paper was quite interesting since it aimed to get researchers to re-think their approach for designing sensor network. How often have you seen research papers starting with "The Internet was never designed with *foo* in mind..." (replace *foo* with the topic of the paper, like content caching, security, mobility, privacy, etc.)? Then, the rest of the paper isn't about analysis what cannot be done with the current Internet protocols (or what the perceived problems are) but rather about yet another clean slate design. Ciao Hannes PS: Btw, the architecture-discuss list will be used for discussions related to Internet architecture: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss On 23.11.2011 10:36, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > Hi, > > Someone who walked up to the mike for asking questions during the > Technical Plenary. He suggested 3 papers that people should read. One > of them was the one below. Does anyone know what the other two were in > this area ? > > IP is Dead, Long Live IP for Wireless Sensor Networks > www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jwhui/pubs/jhui-sensys08-ipv6.pdf > > Regards > Vinayak > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf From hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net Mon Dec 26 01:30:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E633A21F8AE9 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0e8WJiC0NBFJ for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C10921F8ADE for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2011 09:30:11 -0000 Received: from a88-115-216-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.100.107]) [88.115.216.191] by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 26 Dec 2011 10:30:11 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18fBKp9HiUf4EjVdGNUksEif9c2s8JpXGsfqrw/Nc pAkfq2NCHai8oi Message-ID: <4EF83EA0.1020700@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:30:08 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: charles.perkins@earthlink.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, zach@sensinode.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, robert.assimiti@nivis.com Subject: [arch-d] Re Follow-on questions from the "Internet of Things" discussion on Monday X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:30:15 -0000 Hi Charlie, thanks for your questions. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:22:20 -0800 > From: Charles E. Perkins > To: arch-discuss at iab.org > Cc: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - DE/Germany - MiniMD)" > , Zach Shelby , > Bernard Aboba , Jari Arkko , > Fred Baker > Subject: Follow-on questions from the "Internet of Things" discussion on Monday > > > Hello folks, > > Very interesting discussion on Monday. I asked some questions > but had a dozen more. Some were resolved later in the week. > Here are a few more. > > - Carsten campaigned against garrulity and fluff. For people > attempting to adhere to a modular design discipline, both > garrulity and fluff are difficult to avoid. For designs > that are intended to be extensible, garrulity is almost > guaranteed, and fluff will be in the eye of the beholder. > > These are generalities. Has anyone thought of specifics > from the problem domain to combat them? I have to redirect that question to Carsten. He brought up the issue and I wonder whether he has some ideas. Of course, this is not just a question for the smart object area but an interesting question in general for a standards developing organization. I put Carsten on CC. > > - Comments on 3GPP's M2M work? Does anyone on the panel > foresee any application for it in the Internet of Things? I guess you mean the ETSI M2M work. I have to say that I do not know the work in detail and so I have to skip the answer to that particular work. The other panel members were more involved in ETSI and so they may know something. More broadly speaking, there are lots of organizations who believe that IoT, M2M, etc. are very special areas that require a huge amount of standardization work. Whenever you send a lot of standardization professions to a body they produce lots of standards. From past work we have seen that the understanding of what has to be standardized goes through all layers. That takes a lot of time. The Prague IETF plenary dealt with that topic. > > - Mobility: The answer from one knowledgeable source was that > "good" applications don't depend on any particular IP address. > Presumably they anchor device context in some way. Must each > solution be different? Must the namespace for the endpoints > of each IoT application be separate? I believe what was meant is that you design your applications in such a way that the device re-configures dynamically to deal with IP address changes. If you think about the range of scenarios I think it is fair to say that not every device needs the ability to receive asynchronous inbound communication, which would require some "registration" / "anchoring" mechanism to be used. For those scenarios where this is needed there are a number of choices, including solutions at the link layer, network layer, transport layer, and application layer. > > No surprise: I claim that traveling down the path of > per-application mobility is simply begging for bugs as > each new domain of expertise relives the horrors of the > developers in the previous domain. Painful shock #1: > security. For "too many" devices, painful shocks are > likely to arrive from all directions. It depends what you want to accomplish with your application. > > - Jari Arkko praised the benefits of single-hop hub-and-spoke > architectures. Sounds great for the home or perhaps even > for the apartment house but not for IoT in the general case > for the canonical list of reasons. Would the IAB care to > produce guidance on this matter? It has come up in various > disguises all too many times. Jari should respond to this question but I had made similar observations myself. > > PS. I don't know if this is the proper mailing list; if not, > please direct me to the proper place. There is a mailing list, namely architecture-discuss@ietf.org. You can subscribe here: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss Ciao Hannes