Hi,
I also agree that the mobility will be one of the drivers of 6lowpan
integration.
By reading the draft I become confused by the term mobility, since there
are several types of mobility. Are you referring to seamless mobility,
the one that let us move one node from one network to another and still
have a continuous session? Or the draft just considers nomadism, where
every time a node moves it needs to establish a new session?
I think you could clarify this aspect in section 2 of the draft.
Another consideration that I would like to see clarified is the one
regarding the concept of Home Network (HN). In normal IPv6, HN takes an
important role in mobility since it’s the Home Agent that is responsible
to keep track of the CoA of our MN. In the draft you named it as
original IPv6 gateway (OIG). My issue is who defines the OIG? Since the
lowpan nodes can be randomly placed in scenario, in my opinion there can
not be a lowpan HA concept, due to the mobility and fault tolerance
characterizes of such network.
So it would be interesting to insert in section 4 one example, where a
mobile node, not located on its primary network, needs to contact a
specific lowpan node, using its Home Address (IPv6).
I also agree that it’s important to refer the mobility role of
reduced-function devices as suggested by previous replies.
Best Regards,
Tiago Camilo
University of Coimbra
Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
Hello All:
We have published an updated version of 6lowpan mobility goals and
requirements
draft :
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chakrabarti-mobopts-lowpan-req-01.txt
The draftname still reflects mobopts wg. We can change name to
publish under 6lowpan flag next time.
Please read the draft and provide comments in the mailing list.
Thanks,
-Samita
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
