Benjamin, On 5/29/08, Benjamin A. Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, first post to the list, so forgive if I'm sounding like a newbie... > How would one get link quality information to the upper layers other than > via a MAC service?
We are in the same track. That's why I think we need to utilize information from MAC for 6lowpan routing matrics. > I can see inserting a shim-layer service to isolate upper layers form the > different MACs which may be under it, so as to provide a consistent service > interface. Of course you can only get what the MAC provides, but the shim > layer and upper layer's can be designed to handle gracefully different MAC > capabilities (at least consistently). > :) > I'm asking with a bit of a bias here: I'm currently working on MAC > enhancements for 802.15.4 (in task group "e" in 802.15), including a > proposal for enhanced link assessment information from the MAC. So of course > I'd suggest not ruling out some better link metrics in the 802.15.4 MAC at > some point, although upper layers still need to deal with existing 802.15.4 > devices. So the general thinking from upper layer uses is very interesting. > Thanks > -Ben > The current 6LoWPAN RR draft has been started with the reason you concern, and we've kept working on it, as I believe that there are necessity of this work nevertheless some folks have different opinion(I'm trying to listen other side too). Thank you for sharing your thought. :) - eunah > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eunsook "Eunah" Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Philip Levis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:54 PM > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan > > > > Philip, > > Thanks for the comment. LQI in the draft was mentioned for one > > requirement, and it is given as just one of the examples for routing > > matrics to utilize possible information to build up better routing > > metrics for low power networks. If you think we shouldn't bond 6LoWPAN > > to use MAC metrics, I'm okay with that. We can rule out it, but keep > > doing the study about routing matrics. Thank you. > > > > -eunah > > > > On 5/29/08, Philip Levis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On May 28, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Eunsook Eunah Kim wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Philip, > >> > > >> > > >> > > 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. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > We don't talk about solutions. We want to see if 6LoWPAN has special > >> > routing requirements due to 802.15.4 specific or not. If route-over > >> > solutions can be provided to fit the requirements of 6LoWPAN, I'm > >> > happy. > >> > > >> > >> Exactly: as soon as you start talking about things like LQI, you are > >> coupling yourself not only to a specific link layer, but also a specific > >> implementation of that link layer. In practice, many networks use the > >> 802.15.4 link layer but not its MAC layer, as it has terrible energy > >> properties. > >> > >> Phil > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 6lowpan mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
