Hi Carsten,
these sounds like some serious architectural concerns with IPv6. Should
these really be dealt with by an adaptation layer that defines how to
transport IPv6 packets over a particular link layer? I am not too
accustomed to IETF practices, but isn't there a wg specifically for the
purpose of forwarding the IPv6 architecture (6man) where issues like
these should be raised?
Also, one specific question: how would an IPv6 host deal with an
802.15.4 network interface if the IPv6 adaptation layer would require
changes to the core of the IPv6 stack to function properly?
Thanks,
/adam
Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 14:47, Julien Abeille (jabeille) wrote:
the issues arised on lowpan networks as far as ND is concerned are not
huge
[WG member hat]
Julien,
I'd like to know more about that.
As far as I can see, certain parts of 4861-ND just DO NOT WORK on
non-transitive networks.
It's really as simple as that.
So you either make 6LoWPANs transitive at huge cost, or you need
something like 6LoWPAN-ND for those parts.
(Or, you simply ignore that they don't work, which you mostly can for
DAD; we didn't want to do that.)
Please reread section 1, paragraph 2 of 4861 for its area of applicability.
Gruesse, Carsten
PS.: re the charter:
Getting rid of 4861's address resolution by multicast is indeed just an
optimization.
I happen to believe it is a good one. We can (and should!) debate that.
I would have argued to simply get rid of DAD as well, but there is the
issue of counterfeiting.
So we made a limited extension to make DAD work, which it doesn't for
4861-ND on non-transitive.
etc.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
--
Adam Dunkels <[email protected]>, +46707731614
http://twitter.com/adunk | http://www.sics.se/~adam/
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
