I support the current proposed charter.
I also think that 6LoWPAN architecture needs to include both approaches.
Thanks.
-eunah
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Carsten Bormann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
