On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 27 2007, at 17:57, Kris Pister wrote:
6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol below the IP layer.
For sure the word "requires" is incorrect.
I'm sure the term "6lowpan" can be redefined to make this statement
true.
For now, RFC4919 takes the stance that L2 routing ("mesh") is an
integral part of the 6lowpan requirements.
Note that RFC4919 is a problem statement, not a requirement document
with RFC2119
language. Furthermore there is nothing in the RFC that mandates for
the routing function to
take place at the layer2.
If we want to change this, I'd like to hear a good argument why
this recent consensus is no longer valid.
Thanks.
JP.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
