Dominik Kaspar wrote:
Daniel,
I think there is one requirement missing, which should state that
"reduced-function devices" are not to be involved in any mobility
related
signaling.
Why ? Should RFD be a stationary mode only in 6lowpan area ? Can you
elaborate on your concern again ?
Daniel Park
What I meant is that reduced-function devices should be able to move
without having to involve actively in any mobility protocol. Even
though the separation between RFDs and FFDs is pointed out in the
draft, I could not see whether different mobility-related requirements
apply to them or not.
For example the draft makes these two statements:
- "The lowpan nodes must be able to detect its movement from one
wireless LowPan to another correctly."
- "When a lowpan node moves from one personal area network(6lowpan) to
another, it should immediately inform the new PAN co-ordinator about
its presence."
In my opinion, RFD nodes should not have to detect their own movement.
Their movement should *be detected* by more capable devices... what do
you think?
I agree with this approach, it is important to reduce the network
activity of the RFD nodes. One possible solution of such *detect*
mechanism can be incorporated as one "LowPan Neighbor Discovery
Extension", in the Chakrabarti ID.
Tiago Camilo
University of Coimbra
Best regards,
Dominik
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
