Great discussion and inputs from many header compression experts. >So maybe for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such context-less scheme more compelling.
I can with certainty give 2 such examples where I was involved multiple times w.r.t IPv6 usage: 1. A subset of mIOT UEs (this is a huge swath of UEs we are talking about) which needs low latency, high bandwidth and is sensitive to battery power. For example, a V2X UE, cares for low latency and high bandwidth *but is not *necessarily constrained by low battery power (though saving is always good). However, an AR/VR UE (advanced handset or 5G enabled headset) cares for all 3 (high BW, low latency and battery). 2. Another one is with LEO satellite constellations and communication from the end points. Here also only a subset of use cases/devices cares for all 3. regards! -- Uma C. On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:26 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Hi Kerry and Alexander, > > > > Thank you very much for the information. It seems the existing standards > serve their purpose well. But Kerry did mention an interesting point: both > these networks have low data rate and are insensitive to latency. So maybe > for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical > requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such > context-less scheme more compelling. This is very helpful discussion. > Thanks a lot! > > > > Best regards, > > Haoyu > > > > *From:* Kerry Lynn <ker...@ieee.org> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2021 9:04 AM > *To:* Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com> > *Cc:* Alexander Pelov <a...@ackl.io>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > pthub...@cisco.com>; int-area@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Haoyu Song <haoyu.s...@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > > > Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth > efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost > of storage and processing in wireless. It would be great if we could find > some quantitative research results. Is there any such info available? It’s > also good to know that SCHC already supports direct device communications. > How about 6loWPAN? Same? > > > > It is important to note that there are several 6lo data links that employ > RFC6282 > > header compression including RFC8163, which is wired. (Indeed, I believe > 6282 > > is a common denominator of published 6lo RFCs.) So, from my perspective, > I'd > > like your proposal to show why RFC6282 _won't_ work for your application. > > > > Re: quantitative research results for the comparative energy costs of > different > > 6lo design tradeoffs, I believe these studies do exist and folks in t2trg > might be > > able to point you to specific papers. Most (all?) 6lo data links are > characterized > > by low data rates, so it's important to consider the latency win of IPv6 > header > > compression as an additional consideration. > > > > Regards, Kerry > > > > <snip> > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
