Hi Carsten, Ron and all:

Agree, it is a good point that we did not clearly discuss the topology for
6lowpan architecture. During 6lowpan-nd discussion, we discussed and
agreed on different supporting topologies for 6lowpan ( both at interim 05
and at Dallas IETF meeting). Section 4 of 6lowpan-nd draft captures that
text (see below). If we decide to have a separate architecture document,
then we can use these portion of the text.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  Assumptions about Topology and Address Mapping

  In order to minimize the multicast packets we need to make some
  assumptions that tie together the L2 functional elements and the L3
  functional elements.  We also state our understanding of how IPv6
  would map to a LowPan network:
  o  One PAN-ID defines one LowPan Network.
  o  Each LowPan corresponds to one IPv6 subnet as PAN-ID may be used
     to determine a subnet.
  o  There is one PAN co-ordinator or PAN group leader per one LowPan.
  o  The IPv6 router which sits in the boundary of the LowPan is a PAN
     co-ordinator.
  o  There can be multiple co-ordinators in the LowPan.
  o  When a device connects to the LowPan at layer 2, it finds out a
     (unicast) layer 2 address for its co-ordinator.
  o  By recursive construction, the previous item implies that a co-
     ordinator knows its co-ordinator from when it connected to the
     LowPan, hence there is distributed knowledge of unicast addresses
     that lead all the way to the PAN co-ordinator.
  o  The IPv6 router assigns addresses through prefix advertisement.
  o  The other FFDs in the network do not act as a IPv6 router, but
     they generally route data packet in the L2 layer (Mesh layer
     routing).
  o  Star topology assumes that each node is one hop away from the PAN
     co-ordinator.
  o  This document defines a mesh topology (see diagram below).  In
     mesh topology, each node is capable of forwarding.  Thus it can be
     assumed as a network of full functional devices (FFDs) with one
     PAN co-ordinator and multiple co-ordinators.





Chakrabarti & Nordmark  Expires December 26, 2006               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    LowPan Neighbor Discovery Extensions         June 2006


  o  FFDs may or may not be more than one hop away from the PAN co-
     ordinator.
  o  We assume that the 64-bit EUI-64 addresses are used as link-layer
     address in the lowpan, since these addresses never change for a
     given node.  Appendix A discusses some additional considerations
     should we apply this to the 16-bit addresses.

  This document currently supports the following topologies:


           1)  Star  Topology

                PAN-C
                   O
                /  |   \
               o   o    o  <------- RFDs or FFDs

          2) Mesh Topology

           Example-1                               Example-2

                  O    PAN-C                     O <--  PAN-C
             /    |      \      o             /  |    \
            /     |       \   /              /   |     \
           FFD----FFD----- FFD              FFD--FFD-----FFD
            \     |\       /  \              \    | \    /|
             \    | \     /|   o              \   |  \  / |
              \   |  \   / |                   \  |   \/  |
               \  |   \ /  |                    \ |   /\  |
                \ |    \   |                     \|  /  \ |
                 \|   / \  |                      |/     \|
                  FFD    \ |                      FFD    FFD
               /  | \     FFD
              o   0  o    / \
                          o  o  <--RFDs

  Each FFD may act as simple co-ordinators but there is only one PAN
  co-ordinator in the mesh LowPan topology.

------------------------------------

Thanks,
-Samita


On 10/27/06, Carsten Bormann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ron,

good input.

Let me just pick up on one of these points:

The IETF is quite wary about "architecture" documents.

(The OSI reference model is the textbook example here:
ISO did an architecture ["reference model"], and then, only when
defining the protocols, found out that the architecture didn't make
sense.
But it was too late to fix the architecture, so the bad layers limped
on until OSI finally died.
The really funny thing, of course, is that, in 2006, people are
*still* citing the layers of the defunct reference model...)

In the IETF, we tend to standardize functional components and leave
it to the market how to build "architectures" out of these.
Of course, that is not always possible.
Also, it may be necessary to have an (really: one or more)
architectures in mind when building components.

So, I'd welcome discussion of architecture(s).  I'm just not sure we
actually want to "standardize" them.

Gruesse, Carsten


_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan


_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to