On May 27, 2008, at 2:29 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: > > At least, there are the following items listed in the routing > requirements > draft (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq-05.txt) > that route-over approach cannot provide or would provide only in a > limited > way:
I disagree wholeheartedly. I think there is a big confusion here between a protocol specification and a protocol implementation. These are all arguments for cross-layer design, that tightly integrating routing and the link layer will lead to a better solution. Practice has shown us otherwise; only by clearly separating concerns do you give a protocol the flexibility needed to evolve over time. What happens when a new low power link layer emerges? Having N different solutions, each with their own details, which somehow need to be made to work well together, seems like a path of brittle and difficult to manage networks. Switches are good, to a point; there's a reason you have routers. The purpose of a protocol specification, IMO, is to specify what is needed for interoperability; there should, in theory, be multiple possible implementations (and by that, I mean power saving approaches) that can all interoperate. Phil _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
