7 ms·

Bluetooth 4.2 includes IPv6 support

33 points by cek 12y ago

0x0 12y ago
Will this require updated hardware, or is it enough to update the software stack for devices with 4.0 hardware? The FAQ wasn't clear. (The FAQ did go on for lengths about branding "bluetooth 4.2" vs "bluetooth smart" vs "bluetooth smart ready" vs "bluetooth". Have they learnt nothing from the "HD Ready" silliness? Also it's weird to see that "bluetooth low energy is an optional part of the specification". Sounds like a "fun" spec to implement)
th0br0 12y ago
This is awesome. OTOH, I wonder whether 4.3 will then introduce a HW-based firewall approach to the IoT devices running 4.2 ... (which we might have by ... 2028?)
teraflop 12y ago
I wish they provided enough actual technical details to see what's new here. As far as I'm aware, the usual way to do IP-over-Bluetooth encapsulation is using the Personal Area Networking profile [1], which has required support for IPv6 support since 2001. (I've never tested it on real hardware with anything other than IPv4, so maybe it was specified but never implemented? Regardless, it seems odd that a mechanism that tunnels Ethernet packets would have to care about higher levels of the protocol stack.) [1]: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/Bluetooth/PAN-Profile.pdf http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/Bluetooth/PAN-Profile....
- rwg 12y ago
  I'm guessing it's related to IPv6 over Bluetooth Low Energy, which is currently working its way through the bowels of the IETF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle Basically, they saw what a glorious success 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over 802.15.4) has been (</sarcasm>), realized BLE/L2CAP has a fair bit in common with 802.15.4 (focus on minimizing power consumption, low data rates, crazy small per-packet payload sizes), and decided to reuse 6LoWPAN's IPv6 header compression (RFC 6282) in this IPv6-over-BLE standard.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    To be fair, 6lowpan has suffered in no small part due to 802.15.4 itself having no real deployment outside of use for proprietary mesh network protocols. BTLE has far, far, far wider hardware deployment.
  - maguirre 12y ago
    while 6LoWPAN hasn't seen as wide adoption as I would have expected it appears that much if the standard will be implemented by google's THREAD, although not guaranteed success I'd not dismiss 6LoWPAN just yet
cek 12y ago
Imagine when an OpenSSL like bug is found in the firmware in all these IPv6 over BT lightbulbs?
- mey 12y ago
  My biggest fear of the "Internet of things" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things#Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things#Security
kstrauser 12y ago
OK, I'm pretty dumb about Bluetooth so feel free to laugh: Why does BT know or care about IPv6? It have thought it was a physical layer, like Ethernet, that you could pass IPv4, IPv6, PPP-over-ATM, or whatever thing you wanted to over it. My home network switch doesn't support or not support IPv6. Why would Bluetooth?
- tw04 12y ago
  They want it to compete with other internet of things technologies like z-wave.
gonzo 12y ago
http://www.iij-ii.co.jp/lab/seminars/slides/iijlab-seminar-20130807.pdf http://www.iij-ii.co.jp/lab/seminars/slides/iijlab-seminar-2...
twrkit 12y ago
Pardon my hardware ignorance (I'm one of those 'software guys'), but could something like this be used for a close-proximity meshnet?
cyberjunkie 12y ago
I don't know. I kinda chuckled at the last image on the page. I thought it looked like some sort of mission control for an interstellar space launch, with a random tourist couple in lab coats at the helm, with no clue of what is going on in the screens.

33 points by cek 12y ago

0x0 12y ago

Will this require updated hardware, or is it enough to update the software stack for devices with 4.0 hardware? The FAQ wasn't clear. (The FAQ did go on for lengths about branding "bluetooth 4.2" vs "bluetooth smart" vs "bluetooth smart ready" vs "bluetooth". Have they learnt nothing from the "HD Ready" silliness? Also it's weird to see that "bluetooth low energy is an optional part of the specification". Sounds like a "fun" spec to implement)

th0br0 12y ago

This is awesome. OTOH, I wonder whether 4.3 will then introduce a HW-based firewall approach to the IoT devices running 4.2 ... (which we might have by ... 2028?)

teraflop 12y ago

I wish they provided enough actual technical details to see what's new here. As far as I'm aware, the usual way to do IP-over-Bluetooth encapsulation is using the Personal Area Networking profile [1], which has required support for IPv6 support since 2001. (I've never tested it on real hardware with anything other than IPv4, so maybe it was specified but never implemented? Regardless, it seems odd that a mechanism that tunnels Ethernet packets would have to care about higher levels of the protocol stack.) [1]: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/Bluetooth/PAN-Profile.pdf http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/Bluetooth/PAN-Profile....

rwg 12y ago
I'm guessing it's related to IPv6 over Bluetooth Low Energy, which is currently working its way through the bowels of the IETF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle Basically, they saw what a glorious success 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over 802.15.4) has been (</sarcasm>), realized BLE/L2CAP has a fair bit in common with 802.15.4 (focus on minimizing power consumption, low data rates, crazy small per-packet payload sizes), and decided to reuse 6LoWPAN's IPv6 header compression (RFC 6282) in this IPv6-over-BLE standard.
- teacup50 12y ago
  To be fair, 6lowpan has suffered in no small part due to 802.15.4 itself having no real deployment outside of use for proprietary mesh network protocols. BTLE has far, far, far wider hardware deployment.
- maguirre 12y ago
  while 6LoWPAN hasn't seen as wide adoption as I would have expected it appears that much if the standard will be implemented by google's THREAD, although not guaranteed success I'd not dismiss 6LoWPAN just yet

cek 12y ago

Imagine when an OpenSSL like bug is found in the firmware in all these IPv6 over BT lightbulbs?

mey 12y ago
My biggest fear of the "Internet of things" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things#Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things#Security

kstrauser 12y ago

OK, I'm pretty dumb about Bluetooth so feel free to laugh: Why does BT know or care about IPv6? It have thought it was a physical layer, like Ethernet, that you could pass IPv4, IPv6, PPP-over-ATM, or whatever thing you wanted to over it. My home network switch doesn't support or not support IPv6. Why would Bluetooth?

tw04 12y ago
They want it to compete with other internet of things technologies like z-wave.

gonzo 12y ago

http://www.iij-ii.co.jp/lab/seminars/slides/iijlab-seminar-20130807.pdf http://www.iij-ii.co.jp/lab/seminars/slides/iijlab-seminar-2...

twrkit 12y ago

Pardon my hardware ignorance (I'm one of those 'software guys'), but could something like this be used for a close-proximity meshnet?

cyberjunkie 12y ago

I don't know. I kinda chuckled at the last image on the page. I thought it looked like some sort of mission control for an interstellar space launch, with a random tourist couple in lab coats at the helm, with no clue of what is going on in the screens.