Zach - I agree. Let's do it right, and stick with route over.
ksjp
Zach Shelby wrote:
I'd like to make a bold proposal. If we now decide to take HC into
use, and depreciate HC1 (momentum seems to be there); I would like to
go one step further. Let's depreciate the use of the RFC 4944
mesh-header at the same time.
draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-00 now allows us to do everything which the
mesh-header does, and more. Sending packets to a global IPv6 node
using the mesh header now requires both the mesh-header, plus an L3
destination address. Quite inefficient. Plus there is again the issue
of implementation, testing, and interop along with a confusing spec
where routing src/dst can be carried both in lowpan and IPv6 headers..
This situation is similar to that of HC1 and HC. The mesh-header will
slowly depreciate anyways, especially with ROLL activity, and for
interop reasons between vendors. Let's depreciate it now and stop the
annoying mesh-under vs. route-over confusion.
LOWPAN_BC0 would still be used to eliminate duplicates.
At Sensinode we are likely the largest production deployers with the
mesh-header at this time, and are willing to move to L3 at the same
time as HC. How about other implementors using the mesh-header, can
you support this motion? Can anyone think of a reason to keep the mesh
header?
- Zach
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
