#115: IESG comment #24 (by the Routing Area Directorate) - Requirement 10
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Reporter: carle...@… | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: routing-requirements | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Section 1:
- States "More stringent requirements apply to LoWPANs, as opposed to
higher performance or non-battery-operated networks."
Whereas RFC 4919 (Section 4.2) clearly indicates that "multi-hop" routing
is being typically ensured by Full Featured Devices (FFD)/m-node that have
more capabilities in terms of power, computation, etc than RFD and thus
act as forwarders/routers. The fundamental question behind is "are host
expected to participate to the "LowPAN" routing system or not" ?
On the same line RFC 4944 states "Only Full Function Devices (FFDs) are
expected to participate as routers in a mesh. "Reduced Function Devices"
(RFDs) limit themselves to discovering FFDs and using them for all their
forwarding, in a manner similar to how IP hosts typically use default
routers to forward all their off-link traffic. For an RFD using mesh
delivery, the "forwarder" is always the appropriate FFD."
Requirement R10 (Section 5.3) should be revised accordingly.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/115>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
