Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Mark; > > I'd say the other way around. We need to figure out whether the ISA100 > concept of a backbone is a more generic one and if we agree that such a > backbone federates multiple LoWPANs as a single larger link. > Let me see if I understand, are you saying this is for a lowpan not based on 802.15.4?
- Mark > If we agree on that then we need to design ND for that larger link. > That's when the concept of a registration protocol over the LowPAN > associated to proxy ND on the backbone comes into mind. > > This model should work whether the host on the LoWPAN gets its addresses > from ND autoconf, DHCP or whatever new registration protocol that might > come up to fill the gap between the two. In particular, this can impact > the design of ND on the LowPAN and incline for a solution based on white > board. > > This is why I feel it's important to discuss that now. > > Pascal > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Townsley (townsley) >> Sent: vendredi 16 mai 2008 20:47 >> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan >> >> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark: >>> >>> I think we need a work item (usually implicit) around the concept of >>> improving existing WG RFCs. RFC 4944 can be improved in several >>> > aspects: > >>> - A major one is a better fit with ISA100.11a. Getting ISA100.11a to >>> conform to 6LoWPAN would be a major win, but is certainly not a >>> > given. > >>> At the moment, the ISA100.11a documents expose discrepencies with RFC >>> 4944 that http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6lowpan-hc resolve >>> for the most part. >>> >>> >> Are the resolutions backwards compatible with RFC 4944? I'm eager to >> improve RFC 4944, but not eager to endorse changes that inhibit >> interoperability. >> >>> - The issue of fragmentation. Applying RFC 4944 over a multihop radio >>> mesh exposes the network to congestion collapse, as described in >>> >>> > http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-rec > >>> overy . I think that the WG should dedicate some bandwitdth to >>> > provide > >>> additional functions that would improve the LoWPAN operation WRT flow >>> control and recovery of fragments. >>> >>> >> Fragmentation, OK, but why is flow control a network layer issue rather >> than a transport layer issue? >> >>> Another aspect of ISA100.11a is the concept of a backbone router. It >>> would be appropriate that the IETF comes up with a proposal to >>> > implement > >>> the concept in the IPv6 world. This partially falls under the first >>> > work > >>> item on ND but might also include ND proxy over the backbone which is >>> > a > >>> stretch to the work item. More in >>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router. >>> >>> >> Well, don't we need to define what ND looks like on a lowpan before we >> decide whether it needs to be proxied or not? >> >> - Mark >> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Pascal >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> >>>> >>> Behalf Of Mark Townsley >>> >>> >>>> (townsley) >>>> Sent: jeudi 15 mai 2008 23:02 >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to ask the group one final time for comments on the >>>> > proposed > >>>> new charter. I've also asked the ROLL WG chairs to comment. >>>> >>>> As I said before, soon after the format document was published, >>>> > there > >>> is >>> >>> >>>> nothing stopping the WG from discussing and working on new and >>>> > existing > >>>> items at this time. In fact, activity helps us to decide what should >>>> > be > >>>> in and out of the charter. Please do not construe not having a >>>> > charter > >>>> in place as a reason not to update drafts, or discuss topics that >>>> > need > >>>> to be discussed. Just as when we have BoF's and mailing lists before >>>> creating a new WG, it is good to have WG meetings and on-lists >>>> discussions when creating new WG charters. >>>> >>>> - Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
