On Oct 15, 2009, at 1:40 , Geoff Mulligan wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 14:09 +0300, Zach Shelby wrote:
What you are proposing is that we don't do AR, and only optimize for
the host-router relationship. Of course host-to-host connectivity is
not prevented, you can contact any node within radio range using its
link-local address.
[Editor hat off]
Personally, I agree with your approach, this is all that is needed
in
real applications I have seen so far. I also agree any more general
AR
mechanisms should be left for more general future work. This is
optimization at its best - if you don't need it - leave it out.
[Editor hat on]
I am really concerned about statement. I have seen plenty of real
applications that require P2P and not just host to router
communications.
If AR is required for P2P then we cannot leave it out.
That is not what I said. There is nothing stopping you from doing P2P,
which is of course a very important feature for me as well. AR is not
a prerequisite for P2P.
Zach
geoff
--
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog “On the Internet of Things”
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND
This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system
without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
