Hello Timothy,
IESG had approved 6lowpan wg sometime ago and I am sure they
were aware of some of the cases of IPv6 that are not directly
or efficiently applicable for 802.15.4 networks. IPv6 is still useful
for standardization of these devices. Sensors or 802.15.4 radio interface
capable devices will be deployed large in numbers; the applications
will expand from mere collection information from the end devices and
they would often require to interoperate with regular devices on the
Inernet. IPv6 is the sane and standard way to interoperate in that case
without building numerous application gateways from different vendors.
As one of the design-team members of RFC4294, I can say that IPv6
node requirements document is a guide line for generic IPv6 node builders.
6lowpan devices can implement generic IPv6 protocol, but due to the
nature of power usage, device processing power, 802.15.4 network is
quite different than regular fixed ethernet or wifi network for which IPv6
protocols are generally applicable. IPv6-over-foo needs to be developed
and optimized for other type of interfaces and that's what 6lowpan is
aiming for. The format document has consulted the IPv6-node-requirement
document as well as far as I remember.
It is the same reason, we are trying to optimize IPv6 Neighbor discovery
protocol for this type of network. If you read the 6lowpan goals document
and 6lowpan Neighbor discovery draft, you can see explanations how
6lowpan is different than regular Internet networks.
-Samita
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:14:20 +0300
> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@>
> To: "Timothy J. Salo" <salo@>
> Cc: juha.wiljakka@ [email protected]
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Subsets?
>
> RFC 4294 contains the most recent summary information
> on what nodes should support from IPv6. The detailed
> MUST/SHOULD/MAY requirements are in the IPv6
> specifications themselves.
>
> (RFC 3316 that Juha pointed to is a discussion of issues
> related to running IPv6 over cellular interfaces. The
> type of the interface that you are using does impact what
> you need to support, at least in terms of what IPv6 over
> Foo you need to support, what configuration options
> make sense, etc.)
>
> --Jari
Note that Jari is also a co-author of RFC 4294.
Having said that, I believe that, at least from an engineering perspective,
implementing a subset of IPv6, [a smaller subset than is permitted under
RFC 4294], may make sense for wireless PANs. However, if we conclude that
this is a good idea, we need to understand that implementing a subset of
IPv6 conflicts with the prevailing view of many in the IETF. As such, if
we want to implement less of IPv6 than is permitted under RFC 4294, we
should start preparing our arguments about why wireless PANs are different
from other environments.
-tjs
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
