Hi Gabe,
Thanks for your response.
I have a few questions regarding the routing solutions on Lowpan:
- Are we going to go ahead with lowpan-aodv draft?
If so, I'd like to pass some modification requests that we have
discovered during an exercize of its implementation.
- Are we going to merge lowpan-aodv and LOAD draft?
- If yes, then we need to review this draft seriously. It is RFC3561
based.
IMHO, neigther AODV-bis nor RFC3561 are quite suitable for lowpan routing;
It'd be much nicer if we come up with a lowpan routing protocol based on
DYMO/AODV/AODVbis flavors. It is unlikely that lowpan tiny devices will
route packets for the regular internet, hence the modified standard version
protocol makes more sense for the lowpan world.
I am not quite sure how it is useful to have lowpan-aodv, lowpan-dymo and
lowpan-aodvbis etc. as opposed to one draft that covers lowpan concerns
and is based on parts of AODV/AODVbis and DYMO features. That way we will
not be tying lowpan's fate on success of the corresponding protocols
through the IETF process. But I may be too optimistic.
-Samita
> --- Samita Chakrabarti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A presentation on the lowpan-aodv(or merged Load) would be potential
> > interest to many, I suppose.
>
> I'm suppose this will happen. Perhaps Prof. Kim of Ajou Univ. will provide the
> update.
>
> Along these lines, you were asking about DyMO. I had started something with
Ian
> Chakeres but never submitted it as an I-D (though I did send a pointer
previous
> to Paris). I'm pleased to say the Prof. Kim of Ajou Univ. and Daniel will be
> helping out with this, so perhaps we'll see something about this as well in
> Vancouver.
>
> You had asked about what was the future of AODVbis. This is a question to ask
> in MANET, I guess.
>
> Ian, do you know?
>
> -gabriel
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
