a simple star is not not two-node 6lowpan. I have a seen and used a
simple star lowpan that was able to cover an entire house (10+ nodes)
and 4861 would have worked just fine here.
I don't know what you have in mind, but as I have said over and over I
do have in mind multi-mode star networks and mesh under networks (this
was my original conception of 6lowpan) that would work just fine with
4861.
It is not fine to say, oh just add code to the edge router. In the
applications that I'm building (home controls, environmental
monitoring, ...) cost is important and extra code costs.
If there is a way such that there is interoperability then wonderful.
geoff
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 23:52 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 23:30, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 21:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >> On Oct 12, 2009, at 21:01, JP Vasseur wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> 6LoWPAN-ND is "compatible with 4861".
> >> (BTW, the "architecture" of IPv6 is in 2460, and we are not
> >> optimizing
> >> that.)
> >
> > Carsten,
> > Is this true? Could I have a 6lowpan node that implemented just
> > standard 4861
>
> No.
> That's not the meaning of "compatible" I meant.
>
> Since 4861 never worked on 6lowpan (with the exception of 1) a two-
> node 6lowpan, or 2) a fully transitive mesh-under with reasonably
> reliable multicast delivery, yadda yadda), there is very little use
> for that kind of compatibility.
>
> I think two-node 6lowpans and fully transitive mesh-unders are not the
> main applications we have in mind.
> (Yes, >2-node networks that happen to have full-mesh radio
> connectivity also work, until they no longer happen to have it. Given
> the vagaries of radio propagation, I don't think that's sound design.)
>
> Even if 4861 worked for more interesting cases, the simplifications of
> 6lowpan-ND are a net win for constrained nodes.
> The only nodes that need code for both 4861 and 6lowpan-ND are the
> Edge Routers; of course the two protocols are similar enough that most
> of this code will be shared.
> The use case of "having my laptop in a 6lowpan" is probably best
> solved by the driver adaptation/translation I described.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
