Daniel,
I still don't understand your question. Do you not think that 6lowpan
should generate a PS document on L2 routing? This has been in the
re-charter proposal for months.
I think that there may be networks that will not use L2 mesh and will
instead opt for L3 routing. There might well be other networks that
will use L3 routing between L2 mesh networks.
geoff
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 09:37 +0900, Daniel Park wrote:
> > >> It was my understanding that while 6lowpan may consider
> > "mesh under"
> > >> alternatives (layer 2 routing), it would rely upon a group
> > >> like RSN to deal with "route over" (layer 3 routing) and that
> > >> 6lowpan would provide requirements to RSN.
> > >
> > > I don't think so Geoff. Originally, this deliverable was for
> > > Proposed Standard Document. Are you saying 6lowpan
> > > mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ?
> > > Absolutely, NO.
> > There is no such deliverables ...
>
> I said:
> 4. Produce "6lowpan Mesh Routing" to evaluate different mesh routing
> protocols for use within 6lowpans. While most routing protocols are
> defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol
> below the IP layer. "6lowpan Mesh Routing" may be several proposed
> standard documents.
>
> So, are you thinking we need both solutions as layer 2 routing
> by 6lowpan WG and layer 3 routing by RSN for mesh routing ?
> Or, 6lowpan only work for RSN requirement ?
>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
