Hu Eunah,
On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Eunsook Eunah Kim wrote:
Dear 6lowpaners,
The draft of 6lowpan routing requirements are revised to -04, applying
the comments at the meeting.
JP worries the term *routing* in adaptation layer, and Eric gave us a
good terminology to use there.
Now you will find the description under the figure to reduce the
confusion between "IP routing" and "mesh-under path computation +
forwarding". :-)
I would like to point out again that the figure is to show the basic
architecture based on RFC4944 and WG concensus so far.
Please check the revised version and give your comments.
Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I am not so much worried
about the terminology but the architecture here ...
cut and paste from the ID:
Figure 1 shows the place of 6LoWPAN routing in the entire network
stack.
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Application Layer | | Application Layer |
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Transport Layer (TCP/UDP) | | Transport Layer (TCP/UDP) |
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Network Layer (IPv6) | | Network +---------+ |
+-----------------------------+ | Layer | Routing | |
| 6LoWPAN +---------+ | | (IPv6) +---------+ |
| Adaptation | Routing*| | +-----------------------------+
| Layer +---------+ | | 6LoWPAN Adaptation Layer |
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| IEEE 802.15.4 (MAC) | | IEEE 802.15.4 (MAC) |
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| IEEE 802.15.4 (PHY) | | IEEE 802.15.4 (PHY) |
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
* Here, 'Routing' is not equivalent to IP routing,
but includes the functionalities of path computation and
forwarding under the IP layer.
In our world, routing is performed at the IP layer (RPL) so as to run
on a myriad of L2.
Routing in an adaptation layer makes no sense to me. Perform L2
meshing/routing is
a reality of course, and I personally believe that trying to combine
L2 meshing with L3
routing in our world is completely wrong but this is another discussion.
For example, you write:
"When a 6LoWPAN follows the Mesh Under configuration, the LoWPAN Edge
Router (ER) is the only IPv6 router in the 6LoWPAN (see Figure 3).
This means that the IPv6 link-local scope includes all nodes in the
LoWPAN. For this, a Mesh Under mechanism MUST be provided to
support
multi-hop transmission."
Who is the normative MUST for ?
Back to L2 meshing/routing, if there must be document somewhere I truly
believe that this should go in some white paper or a book, not sure
that we
need an IETF requirement document. If the objective is to provide
requirements
for L2 meshing/routing, then it should be discussed with the SDO in
charge on
these L2 technologies.
Still, there is good data in the document and I would be happy to
discuss on how
we could make some use of it.
Thanks.
JP.
-eunah
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-
requirements-04
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements-04.txt
has been successfuly submitted by Eunsook Kim and posted to the IETF
repository.
Filename: draft-ietf-6lowpan-routing-requirements
Revision: 04
Title: Problem Statement and Requirements for 6LoWPAN
Routing
Creation_date: 2009-07-28
WG ID: 6lowpan
Number_of_pages: 32
Abstract:
6LoWPANs are formed by devices that are compatible with the IEEE
802.15.4 standard. However, neither the IEEE 802.15.4 standard nor
the 6LoWPAN format specification define how mesh topologies could be
obtained and maintained. Thus, it should be considered how 6LoWPAN
formation and multi-hop routing could be supported.
This document provides the problem statement and design space for
6LoWPAN routing. It defines the routing requirements for 6LoWPAN
networks, considering the low-power and other particular
characteristics of the devices and links. The purpose of this
document is not to recommend specific solutions, but to provide
general, layer-agnostic guidelines about the design of 6LoWPAN
routing, which can lead to further analysis and protocol design.
This document is intended as input to groups working on routing
protocols relevant to 6LoWPAN, such as the IETF ROLL WG.
The IETF Secretariat.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
