Carsten - I'm using 6lowpan in the broad sense of the original acronym,
not just RFC4919. That may be incorrect, and I should use different
terminology.
Joe - what layer does MPLS fit in? MPLS looks a little weird, and a
little "2.5"-ish, but to me it's the approach that makes the most sense
for 6lowpan. I haven't gone back to read all of the discussion, but it
seems like the only thing that got added in v6 was the flow label. This
flow label provides a wonderful opportunity to work with protocols like
HART and sp100 that use an L3 graph-ID to govern L2 operation. I think
that we could define a different HC that keeps the v6 flow label and
uses that to control L2. I'm not sure how much of RSVP, etc would be
needed to pull this off, but it seems like it should be possible to do
something very similar to what already exists for MPLS (but probably
simplified, compressed, etc). I'd like to work on this with someone who
is more facile with all of the L3 stuff (which I am not).
ksjp
Joe Polastre wrote:
For now, RFC4919 takes the stance that L2 routing ("mesh") is an
integral part of the 6lowpan requirements.
First comment is that mesh is a networking protocol, not a data-link
protocol. Thus, it cannot be an L2 "routing" requirement.
Since IP is at L3, I agree with Kris--mesh can either be L2.5 (which
is a bit weird IMHO), it can co-exist with IP (in an undefined way),
or it can be leveraged above IP similar to overlays.
-Joe
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
