Hi Benjamin, Just speculating here:
In RPL itself, you could use "IP addresses" made up from MAC addresses as IIDs. For the RPL-routed traffic, you could use 6LoRH-style encapsulation (RFC 8138), which also would fit a mesh-under approach very well. So I think the total amount of messages that have to be designed/redesigned to make RPL applicable to mesh-under is very low; you’d mainly need a few new code points to make sure router-over RPL/traffic and mesh-under RPL/traffic are not confused. But this also raises the question why you want to go mesh-under, if in the end everything looks so similar to route-over. Grüße, Carsten > On Apr 12, 2017, at 06:33, Benjamin Damm <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi folks, I'm new here, so please steer me straight if this is not the right > forum. > > Is there any work under way that looks at how to use the ROLL-RPL data > structures, algorithm, and messages, in a mesh-under network? The routing in > a mesh-under network can be very similar to ROLL-RPL but just one layer down. > Using similar but slightly smaller messages, adjusted for link-level > identifiers instead of IP-level identifiers (and of course not supporting > IPv6 features in the routing layer) seems like it would be possible, so I'm > searching to anyone or any document that might have already led the way for > this kind of mapping. > > Regards, > -Ben > > > Benjamin Damm > O: 669-770-4000 > E: [email protected] www.ssni.com > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
