On Oct 14, 2009, at 14:54, Julien Abeille (jabeille) wrote:
redefine as little as we can
Julien,
discussing this in generalities doesn't help.
4861-style address resolution does not work in a LoWPAN.
So what do we do?
"Redefine as little as we can" would clearly guide us to leave it out,
because that's the minimum redesign.
("Design is done when there is nothing left to remove"...)
But I'm not interested in design that is just based on general items
of philosophy.
I also care little about general points regarding what ATM did --
LoWPAN nodes are not $50k, but $.50 systems, so some tradeoffs are
likely to be extremely different.
These are resource-constrained systems, so we shouldn't design
something new that just wastes resources.
I want to know whether we *need* address resolution.
Pascal gave one very good data point here: It's mostly not needed.
I would like to know when it's still needed, and where the static IID-
LLA mapping does not cover those needs.
Once I know that, I'd like to know what are good, *working* (and
reasonably efficient) ways of meeting those requirements.
Hijacking messages from 4861 and giving them different semantics does
not qualify; we should be upfront where we design new protocol
(although we may be able to reuse formats, as we did in 6lowpan-ND-06).
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
