On Jun 22, 2007, at 2:23 AM, Eunsook "Eunah" Kim wrote:
Hmm..
I'm a bit confused by your discussion.
From Geoff's proposed recharter text, It seemed to be clear for me
that so-called "mesh-under routing" is 6lowpan's concern, while L3
routing is RSN's concern.
Quite right.
We need to find out if we CAN take exisiting solutions or if we NEED
to design a new one. Clearly for me, to find out this answer is
6lowpan's work.
As far as L3 routing is concerned, that task WOULD be the one of the
POTENTIAL
new WG work.
If everybody agrees, it would be nice to go back to the technical work.
Cheers.
JP.
-eunsook
On 6/22/07, Daniel Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoff,
Clarification to me.
L2 mesh routing is made by 6lowpan taking
802.15.5 into consideration, and L3 mesh routing
is perhaps made by another WG regardless of
MANET WG deliverables such as DYMO/AODV
based on 6lowpan L3 mesh routing requirement.
-- Daniel Park
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:50 AM
> To: Daniel Park
> Cc: 'JP Vasseur'; 'Eunsook "Eunah" Kim';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mark Townsley'
> Subject: RE: [6lowpan] Re: [RSN] The need for RSN
>
> 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
