> >"6lowpan Mesh Routing" > >JP> One of these "hot" topic. And of course, the main question will >to be >discuss whether Mesh-under routing is required if Route over is >available. >In particular, open questions are "If we claim a need for a mesh >under routing, >does that mean that we'll see a plethora of IDs showing how to adapt all >protocols (e.g. MANET) used in a 802.15.4 environment ?" > [Pascal] Hi JP:
"While most routing protocols are defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer." I'm also anxious about that sentence. The need for a mesh under vs. routing over should be motivated; also, if that happens, then the IETF might not be the place for this work. It already happens in a number of places such as SP100, HART or 802.15.5. It seems more consistent to focus on IP and delegate a routing over protocol to the Routing Area. So I'd rather have 6LoWPAN support the RL2N (RSN ML) efforts because they are defining a mesh technology that is L2 agnostic, fit into the IETF scope and benefit from the area experience in routing, as opposed to proposing yet another mesh under protocol that might not be well considered by the mentioned standard organizations. Pascal _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
