Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

135RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Internet Protocol Version 6 familiarization

Expand Messages
  • James F. Butler
    Jan 8, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      Hi Coleman,

       

      We (Cimetrics) have been thinking about how broadcasts could be reduced in BACnet IT.  Consider that the following BACnet application-layer services use (or may use) broadcasts:

       

      Who Is & I Am

      Who Has & I Have

      Unconfirmed COV Notification

      Unconfirmed Event Notification

      Time Synchronization & UTC Time Synchronization

      Unconfirmed Private Transfer

      Unconfirmed Text Message

       

      If we want to maintain the functionality provided by the broadcast forms of all of these services, then we need to develop alternatives to broadcasts for each of them.  The use of multicast is one option that should be seriously considered, but simply replacing broadcasts with multicasts does not address the fundamental scalability problem.

       

      My feeling is that trying to come up with a comprehensive solution to BACnet’s broadcast problem might be too much to tackle within the context of your IPv6 proposal.  The working group should decide whether that is in scope or out of scope.

       

      - Jim Butler

       

       

       

       

       


      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Coleman Brumley
      Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:07 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Internet Protocol Version 6 familiarization

       




      Hi Jim,

       

      I had hoped to add support for the different broadcast types (anycast, multicast, etc.) in this revision of the document and really examine how the use of broadcasting will be affected by the use IPv6. 

       

      However, it doesn't look like we'll have time (for this revision of the proposal) to accomplish that or address any wish list items due to the requirement of getting this out to public review quickly.  See my email on 1-Dec-2009 titled "RE: IPv6 presents an opportunity for elimination of broadcast". 

       

      Do we honestly think we can reach consensus on something as big as broadcasts in 2 hours?

       

      I certainly understand the need to get this out to public review for the Smart Grid work -- and I don't disagree with it.  However, I think we're missing the boat on some other important opportunities here. 

       

      Coleman

       

      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James F. Butler
      Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:33 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] Internet Protocol Version 6 familiarization

       

       

      Hi Roland,

      Will we be discussing an IPv6 proposal in Orlando ? If so, I would like
      to see it at least a few days prior to the meeting.

      Thanks,

      - Jim Butler

      -----Original Message-----
      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of rolandlus
      Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:19 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bacnet-ip-wg] Internet Protocol Version 6 familiarization

      This is a list of the main IPv6 RFC documents that describe the core
      components of IPv6. It was requested that the IP-WG familiarize
      themselves with IPv6 so that we are equipped to review the next
      proposal. Coleman Brumbley will be providing an update to the current
      RL-003-10. RL-003-10 is in the Files section of this Yahoo Group.

      http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html

      RFC 2460: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
      RFC 4294 : IPv6 Node Requirements
      RFC 4291: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
      RFC 4193: Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
      RFC 3306: Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses
      RFC 3307: Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast Addresses

      We will be allocated at least two hours in Orlando critically review the
      BACnet/IPv6 proposal. As the Smart Grid is looking to IPv6, it is
      important that we move this proposal out to public review ASAP. Please
      take time before Orlando to study the RFCs and RL-003-10.

      Thanks Roland

       


    • Show all 7 messages in this topic