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. 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). 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). Just my two cents, Miguel Sánchez
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
