> >
> > 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.
>
> As Daniel mentioned, LOAD is what we're working on going forward.
>
Ok.
> > 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 believe an adapted protocol is the idea, yes. I think inventing something
> new won't happen (at least not in this WG, it might in MANET or something else
> in the routing area). But I believe it should be ok for lowpan to adapt
> an existing protocol. Perhaps not all fields are needed. Perhaps not all
> features are needed. The current drafts already started the adaptation because
> I don't believe they include all the bells and whistles in aodv or dymo,
right?
> I guess we're in agreement.
>
Agree.
Thanks,
-Samita
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
