I support this adoption. To response of challenges to use case and
applicability, I would share a concrete use case described as follows:
Companies(including CMCC) build more and more huge datacenters as the
development of business. However, not all of them comply with the newest
regulations for power & environment(P&E) supervision. So, there are
requirements to setup extra P&E supervision sensors and devices in those
datacenters.
The current P&E supervision system employ Field Supervision Unit(FSU) for data
transmission and power supply, however, due to the shortage of ports and
limitation of voltage supply, FSU cannot fulfill the massive sensor requirement
of the smart/intelligent datacenter, which often requires over 600 or 1000
sensors, so additional power supply or batteries are often used. In this case,
although massive sensors can help reduce the power consumption of datacenter
cooling, but the data transmission of those sensors also caused huge power
consumption, which can be improved by low power transmission protocol. And
wireless is not the most optimized approach for connection because of
electromagnetic interference. Field supervision unit(FSU) will connect to
sensor by wired technology, such as AI/DI/RS232/RS485/single pair ethernet.
Multiple FSUs will connect to hierarchical supervision centers and then make
data communication with supervision platform by IPv6.
I believe the NSA solution is a good attempt to be used in this use case. And
Data center supervision is just one typical use case, with emerging of various
smart applications, massive terminal or sensors connection will become regular
method, thus a low power transmission method is necessary for reduce heavy
power consumption.
Research Institute of China Mobile
32 West XuanWuMen Ave, Xichen District,
Beijing 100053, China
Mobile：13701354531
E-mail：longr...@chinamobile.com
-----Original Message-----
From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 11:43 PM
To: 6lo <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03
> believe that it has positive feedback from 6lo WG. As Pascal said,
> this draft has better to consider the narrow applicability and try to
> find a common/general use case.
Why would we spend time on a document that hasn't got a clear use case?
I watched the 6lo recording (conflict with jwp BOF) yesterday, and the question
about resiliency and alternate paths is a very serious one.
Is this a routing protocol or not?
I do not support adoption of the document.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
