> >> It was my understanding that while 6lowpan may consider > "mesh under" > >> alternatives (layer 2 routing), it would rely upon a group > >> like RSN to deal with "route over" (layer 3 routing) and that > >> 6lowpan would provide requirements to RSN. > > > > I don't think so Geoff. Originally, this deliverable was for > > Proposed Standard Document. Are you saying 6lowpan > > mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ? > > Absolutely, NO. > There is no such deliverables ...
I said: 4. Produce "6lowpan Mesh Routing" to evaluate different mesh routing protocols for use within 6lowpans. While most routing protocols are defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer. "6lowpan Mesh Routing" may be several proposed standard documents. So, are you thinking we need both solutions as layer 2 routing by 6lowpan WG and layer 3 routing by RSN for mesh routing ? Or, 6lowpan only work for RSN requirement ? _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
