Hi Miguel,
On 5/30/08 8:18 PM, "Miguel Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi JP, > > > On 5/29/08, JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Phil and Carles, >> >> >> >> On 5/28/08 1:38 AM, "Philip Levis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> > On May 27, 2008, at 2:29 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> At least, there are the following items listed in the routing >>>> >> requirements >>>> >> draft (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq-05.txt) >>>> >> that route-over approach cannot provide or would provide only in a >>>> >> limited >>>> >> way: >>> > >>> > I disagree wholeheartedly. >> >> >> So do I. >> >> >> I think there is a big confusion here >>> > between a protocol specification and a protocol implementation. >>> > >>> > These are all arguments for cross-layer design, that tightly >>> > integrating routing and the link layer will lead to a better solution. >>> > Practice has shown us otherwise; >> >> >> Indeed, "practice" being "The Internet". >> >> > > There are a couple of topics that seem to be cross-layer by nature. One of > them seems to be power awareness. The other seems to be routing involving > wireless links. > > JP> I¹m not against cross-layer if we know what we¹re doing. You¹re quite > right that some issues benefit from cross-layer (e.g. Deep packet inspection, > even sometime dataware routing, ...). > > That is why I am not so sure that "practice" (done mostly with wired links and > without power constraints) is very relevant here. That is why IETF MANET group > was created; not because current routing on the Internet was wrong but because > a new type of problem was being addressed (mobile ad-hoc networking). > > JP> And this is also why ROLL was created, because we had to work on a > different set of issues, constraints, ... See the BOF slides. > > I do not see how MAC feedback can be bad, as not being a mandatory feature > network layer can always just ignore it. However I can see how such a feedback > can avoid repeating operations already performed at the link layer (i.e. link > quality estimation). > > JP> Surely but the original email was going much further in term of layer > violation ... > > Thanks. > > JP. > > Just my two cents, > > Miguel Sánchez > >
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
