Hi Dominik, Let's first think whether BU and MIPv6 and PMIPv6 etc are applicable for 6lowpan networks in general. IMHO, they are not directly applicable to the 6lowpan network, but a variation of that. It depends on how simple are the BUs - if they are small and simple enough then it could be applied to FFDs and may be on RFDs as well. If we think we want exclude the RFDs from mobility signaling, then our solutions will have to support that. It sounds like many people want RFDs to not worry about mobility signaling. I am OK with that modification if majority agrees.
Thanks, -Samita
I think Dominik was talking about procedures such as Binding Updates, Do you think RFD should send throughout their closest FFD periodical BUs? or should be the FFD the one responsible for informing the Home Router (Home PAN co-ordinator) about the new RFD CoA ? I prefer the last approach, due to the RFD energy limitations . > On the other hand, if the RFD moves to a new 6lowpan network, it > should associate > with the new FFD at the L2 layer (association/dissociation is part of > 802.15.4 spec). > Once it associates with a new FFD, the FFD then can send them cached > information on RA and prefix on the network ( this is not part of ND > draft yet, but > we can add it). Nevertheless,by choosing the second approach (FFD sending the BU), we need to warn somehow the FFD on the home address and the PAN co-ordinator address of the RFD, maybe after receiving the RA. -- Tiago Camilo PhD student Laboratory of Communication and Telematics University of Coimbra > But, I agree with you folks that we should specifically talk about RFD > function in the requirement document. > > Thanks, > -Samita > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
