Hi Mark: I'm saying that if we agree that the need for a high speed backbone is not limited to ISA100 then it makes sense to specify it in 6LoWPAN. At the moment, the LowPAN is 802.15.4 but the backbone is anything, though Ethernet is a foremost candidate.
Still I do hope that what we design can easily be applied to other LoWPANs (LP WIFI, 802.15.4a, ISA100 DLL) but that is not what I was discussing here. Sorry for the confusion. Pascal >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Townsley (townsley) >Sent: mercredi 21 mai 2008 23:57 >To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan > >Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> Hi Mark; >> >> I'd say the other way around. We need to figure out whether the ISA100 >> concept of a backbone is a more generic one and if we agree that such a >> backbone federates multiple LoWPANs as a single larger link. >> >Let me see if I understand, are you saying this is for a lowpan not >based on 802.15.4? > >- Mark >> If we agree on that then we need to design ND for that larger link. >> That's when the concept of a registration protocol over the LowPAN >> associated to proxy ND on the backbone comes into mind. >> >> This model should work whether the host on the LoWPAN gets its addresses >> from ND autoconf, DHCP or whatever new registration protocol that might >> come up to fill the gap between the two. In particular, this can impact >> the design of ND on the LowPAN and incline for a solution based on white >> board. >> >> This is why I feel it's important to discuss that now. >> >> Pascal >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mark Townsley (townsley) >>> Sent: vendredi 16 mai 2008 20:47 >>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >>> Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan >>> >>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mark: >>>> >>>> I think we need a work item (usually implicit) around the concept of >>>> improving existing WG RFCs. RFC 4944 can be improved in several >>>> >> aspects: >> >>>> - A major one is a better fit with ISA100.11a. Getting ISA100.11a to >>>> conform to 6LoWPAN would be a major win, but is certainly not a >>>> >> given. >> >>>> At the moment, the ISA100.11a documents expose discrepencies with RFC >>>> 4944 that http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6lowpan-hc resolve >>>> for the most part. >>>> >>>> >>> Are the resolutions backwards compatible with RFC 4944? I'm eager to >>> improve RFC 4944, but not eager to endorse changes that inhibit >>> interoperability. >>> >>>> - The issue of fragmentation. Applying RFC 4944 over a multihop radio >>>> mesh exposes the network to congestion collapse, as described in >>>> >>>> >> http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-simple-fragment-rec >> >>>> overy . I think that the WG should dedicate some bandwitdth to >>>> >> provide >> >>>> additional functions that would improve the LoWPAN operation WRT flow >>>> control and recovery of fragments. >>>> >>>> >>> Fragmentation, OK, but why is flow control a network layer issue rather >>> than a transport layer issue? >>> >>>> Another aspect of ISA100.11a is the concept of a backbone router. It >>>> would be appropriate that the IETF comes up with a proposal to >>>> >> implement >> >>>> the concept in the IPv6 world. This partially falls under the first >>>> >> work >> >>>> item on ND but might also include ND proxy over the backbone which is >>>> >> a >> >>>> stretch to the work item. More in >>>> http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router. >>>> >>>> >>> Well, don't we need to define what ND looks like on a lowpan before we >>> decide whether it needs to be proxied or not? >>> >>> - Mark >>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Pascal >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Behalf Of Mark Townsley >>>> >>>> >>>>> (townsley) >>>>> Sent: jeudi 15 mai 2008 23:02 >>>>> To: 6lowpan@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: [6lowpan] New charter for 6lowpan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to ask the group one final time for comments on the >>>>> >> proposed >> >>>>> new charter. I've also asked the ROLL WG chairs to comment. >>>>> >>>>> As I said before, soon after the format document was published, >>>>> >> there >> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> nothing stopping the WG from discussing and working on new and >>>>> >> existing >> >>>>> items at this time. In fact, activity helps us to decide what should >>>>> >> be >> >>>>> in and out of the charter. Please do not construe not having a >>>>> >> charter >> >>>>> in place as a reason not to update drafts, or discuss topics that >>>>> >> need >> >>>>> to be discussed. Just as when we have BoF's and mailing lists before >>>>> creating a new WG, it is good to have WG meetings and on-lists >>>>> discussions when creating new WG charters. >>>>> >>>>> - Mark >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
