On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Colin O'Flynn wrote:
Hello Adam,
Also, one specific question: how would an IPv6 host deal with an
802.15.4 network interface if the IPv6 adaptation layer would require
changes to the core of the IPv6 stack to function properly?
Having a router in between seems sensible to me. You can get uIPv6
somewhere
small, so I don't see having a simple router as a big problem...
I do not think that the issue is the code size itself but a change in
the architecture, thus
the reasonable question on whether we could find a simpler approach
compatible with
4861 to handle the case of non transitive links that preserves the
architecture.
-Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf
Of Adam Dunkels
Sent: October 12, 2009 3:41 PM
To: Carsten Bormann
Cc: 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fundamental concerns about 6lowpan ND
Hi Carsten,
these sounds like some serious architectural concerns with IPv6.
Should
these really be dealt with by an adaptation layer that defines how to
transport IPv6 packets over a particular link layer? I am not too
accustomed to IETF practices, but isn't there a wg specifically for
the
purpose of forwarding the IPv6 architecture (6man) where issues like
these should be raised?
Also, one specific question: how would an IPv6 host deal with an
802.15.4 network interface if the IPv6 adaptation layer would require
changes to the core of the IPv6 stack to function properly?
Thanks,
/adam
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
