Hi Dominik and Tiago, Sorry for the delay in replying. Some additional comments are in-line.
> > 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
Can you provide an example as to how the network or FFDs will detect new nodes, that is more efficient than the RFDs doing it ? If there is a 802.15.4 level presence detection, then the FFDs can trigger some messages to the new RFD for identification and address assignment. But, it then does not know if the RFD is in sleep mode or in awake mode. Thus, FFDs will need to send periodic messages in the network - the RFDs need to respond anyway and identify themselves. So, I don't see any advantages in network initiated detection. On the other hand, if the RFD moves to a new 6lowpan network, it should associate with the new FFD at the L2 layer (association/dissociation is part of 802.15.4 spec). Once it associates with a new FFD, the FFD then can send them cached information on RA and prefix on the network ( this is not part of ND draft yet, but we can add it). But, I agree with you folks that we should specifically talk about RFD function in the requirement document. Thanks, -Samita _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
