Hi Geoff: RFC 4861 is not designed for non transitive links. So applying it on a LoWPAN is non-standard. When networks with new characteristics come up, there's a need for an IPv6-over-Foo work; Thus the work at 6LoWPAN. Whatever this WG comes up with, that will be how IPv6 operates on a LoWPAN. The rest is proprietary experimentation.
At this point, we do not have a requirement for interoperability for RFC4861 nodes. If you want to add that requirement and thus impact the spec, then you need to justify your case: - Can you build a workable solution with RFC 4861? - What are the limits/trade offs? - What use cases do that satisfy? - Does such a use case really need to Interop with standard 6LoWPAN on a same link? Note1: there's no IPv6-over-Foo for 802.11 infra mode because the infra mode emulates a transit link like Ethernet at L2, and thus RFC 4861 applies. OTOH, 6LoWPAN ND and ROLL will be a perfect match for 802.11 adhoc mode. But then there's no requirement to Interop that with adhoc mode and it is wise not to collocate adhoc and infra. Note2: As soon as you go L3, you can interconnect nodes on alien link layers. That's what IP is all about. Would your use case be satisfied if the nodes connect via a router? Pascal >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan >Sent: jeudi 17 septembre 2009 08:22 >To: 6lowpan >Subject: [6lowpan] RFC4861 and 6lowpan ND > >Has anyone determined if a standard RFC4861 end device would be able to >work with a 6lowpan ND edge router, would it be able to get the >necessary commissioning data (prefix, default router, ...) > >And the reverse, could a 6lowpan ND end device get commissioned via a >standard RFC4861 ND router? > > geoff > > >_______________________________________________ >6lowpan mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
