On Jun 14 2008, at 11:30, JP Vasseur wrote:
>>> This document will cover the concepts of "Mesh Under" and "Route
>>> Over",
>>
>> Any architecture document that does not define these terms would be a
>> rather strange architecture document indeed.
>
> Well hopefully we do not need to define what Routing means at the
> IETF ;-)
> and the notion of mesh-under is a form of routing at layer 2 (not
> really in
> the scope of the IETF).
>
> Since this is a contentious debate to say the least, I was proposing
> to deal
> with it as a separate item for the moment so as to quickly move
> forward with
> the architecture document where lot of work is still needed.
I'm still confused.
What is the debate you are referring to?
In case you actually do mean the mesh-under vs. route-over debate:
It is pretty clear that there will be mesh-under and route-over.
I cannot quite imagine reaching consensus on dropping one of them now.
I also cannot imagine a coherent architecture that ignores this
important distinction.
So I thought we would continue to address both approaches in the
architecture document.
(For those who came late to 6lowpan: The assumption so far has been
that 6lowpan would, as any IPv6 link is, be agnostic with respect to
forwarding/routing operating on top of it, and that it would support
L2 forwarding ("mesh-under"), with a slight focus on stubby lowpans.
See section 4.2 of RFC 4919.)
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
