Dear Alex,

There are misunderstanding, so I would like to clarify them.
Thanks.

>
>> 2. route-over: basically, it should be the same as traditional IPv6
>> routing, except the gateway needs to work on
>> compression/decompression of IP/UDP.. headers.
>
> I was not aware of that constraint.  You seem to imply the 'route-over'
> capability requires the use of Header Compression.  I will have to check
> the HC 6LoWPAN draft.
>

Oh, no. ROUTING mechanism WON"T require header compression/decompression.
Routing will be included after IP/UDP, or where the routing protocol
is designed in.
I just gave you an example of 6lowpan network to communicate with non-6lowpan.
Just what I want to say was you need decoding 6lowpan_header for the
communication.
It's not the routing role.


>>> Will the 6LoWPAN router use longest-prefix match (as IP protocols
>>> do) or exact-match (as some VLAN switch protocols do).
>>>
>>
>> In route-over, every intermediate node which performs routing fucntions is
>> called 6lowpan router. I didn't see a runing route-over
>> solution for 6LoWPAN yet. In my opinion, it will use as IP protocols
>> do. (I understand that's the concept of route-over. I think ROLL
>> people may answer it more clearly) In mesh-under, generally, one IPv6
>> router exists in one 6lowpan. 6lowpan nodes in the lowpan will
>> perform routing functions but not use IPv6 address. Whole 6lowpan is
>> one IPv6 link, and the IPv6 router of 6lowpan will act as a normal
>> IPv6 router to communicate with other IPv6 router outside of the
>> 6lowpan, but the functionality for inside of 6lowpan routing would
>> differ (not use IPv6 addresses).
>
> I wouldn't call the route-over 'routing' (or perform routing functions)
> if it didn't use IP addresses.  It's confusing.
>

Mesh-under doesn't use IP address. Route-over uses IP address.
As I understand, Route-over for LoWPAN or LLNs is the same like other
IP based routing.
So far, mesh-under was widely-understood way to make a multi-hop
connection in LoWPAN,
and ROLL was born to make IP based routing for it. So it uses IP
address for routing.

>> [snip..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [R18] If the routing protocol functionality includes enabling
>>>>>> IP multicast, then it may want to employ coordinator roles,
>>>>>> if any, as relay points of group-targeting messages instead
>>>>>> of using link-layer multicast (broadcast).
>>>>>
>>>>> link-layer multicast no broadcast.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if 'link-layer multicast' is a proper term when
>>>> 802.15.4 does not provide multicast.
>>>
>>> Maybe that's a requirement to put on 802.15.4 not on 6LoWPAN.
>>>
>>> I mean it would be difficult to revive the 'broadcast' concept back
>>> into IPv6 documents, I suppose.
>>>
>> Yes, i also think that it's great if 802.15.4 supports link-layer
>> multicast. As it does not, 6lowpan wants to avoid IP multicast which
>> causes link broadcast as much as possible. I should think what else
>> term can be used instead of broadcast if it is not acceptable
>> termniology.
>
> Well, at IEEE 802 link-layer, broadcast means 'ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff'
> address, whereas multicast means '33:33:0:0:0:X' address.  Anything
> different has too many meanings.
>
> I would actually appreciate a lot if this link-layer multicast
> requirement went back to IEEE 802.15.4 instead of being addresses in an
> IETF draft.  It risks being specified for the sake of specifying it, but
> implementations may simply go on and not use neither broadcast nor
> multicast.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Alex
>

6lowpan is on 802.15.4, and IP multicast will go all nodes in the lowpan
which is energy-expensive for lowpan nodes. Thus, i think
such a restraint of all-nodes receiving packets is necessary to be considered
when we design a solution for lowpan.
And, in my opinion, this is well-agreed issue for 6lowpaners.
(RFC 4944 also mentioned it)
If we avoid to say broadcasting issue,
can you help me to find how we contain such a requirement, based on
IETF conventional way? :)

Thank you much,
-eunah
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to