On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:27 +0100, Colin O'Flynn wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > I agree with you there - these nodes would *not* be participating in real IP > or mesh forwarding. > > However the ND process needs to function with these nodes. If we rely on > 4861, these nodes which are going to miss packets must have a way to defend > their address!
I'm not sure why they need to defend an address. > > -Colin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: October 13, 2009 11:04 PM > To: Colin O'Flynn > Cc: 'Adam Dunkels'; '6lowpan' > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fundamental concerns about 6lowpan ND > > > Hi Colin, > > On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Colin O'Flynn wrote: > > > My concern for this sleeping method is very low power nodes. These > > would be > > parasitic nodes for example that can only wake up every few seconds > > at most. > > > > These super-low power nodes could not listen continuously. Forcing > > them to > > require waking up would basically eliminate them from the picture. > > For these very special devices, I often prefer to view them as > wireless peripherals rather than IP devices. They most likely won't > be able to participate in forwarding/routing functions. Any bi- > directional communication tends not to be end-to-end since they want > to minimize round-trip time. > > -- > Jonathan Hui > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
