Hi Colin:

I'd say that the backbone must be dimensioned to the needs, like any
network.

For mission critical deployments, technologies like virtual switching
system (VSS) provide high availability and aggregated bandwidth to scale
to the needs.

And you'll find that TRILL provides immense scaling properties, and that
ND proxy make a lot of sense there. For all I know, edge routers can do
TRILL on the back end.
 
More below...

>> Are you sure an Ethernet would support
>> periodic NAs about the potentially very large number of nodes in the
>> 6LoWPAN network?
>
>From RFC4861:
>   In such cases a node MAY send up to MAX_NEIGHBOR_ADVERTISEMENT
>   unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement messages to the all-nodes
>   multicast address.  These advertisements MUST be separated by at
>   least RetransTimer seconds.
>
>Since they are a MAY we could just not transmit any. There probably
isn't
>any advantage to sending them, as I doubt ERs will store a large enough
>table of previously received NAs, but just do a NS when they need to
find
>something.
>
>> Ethernet uses different cables from each machine, through a
hub/switch,
>> etc. which does scales.
>
>ND messages would be multicast anyway, so almost everyone would see
them
>through a switch. Hence I don't see the difference between 10000
computers
>in a local subnet and 10000 sensor nodes in a local subnet.
>
>Assume we are at 10Mbits/second on Ethernet, through a hub so
everything is
>broadcast.
>
>NS is 24 bytes. Let's add some options to bring it up to 40 bytes. Add
IPv6
>header for 80 bytes. Add Ethernet header for 96 bytes. Assume some
overhead
>for CRC, retransmission, sync, etc etc, let's say 2x overhead so I
can't be
>accused of underestimating: 192 bytes. 192 bytes = 1536 bits.
>
>10E6 / 1536 = 6510 NS messages/second. Yikes! Sure it's not a good
estimate,
>but it's so far above our requirements I don't see a need to get a
better
>estimate.
>
>I'm assuming the proper deployment for a extended LOWPAN network is to
put
>the entire LOWPAN behind a router. The only traffic to worry about is
LOWPAN
>traffic, which would pale in comparison to the traffic generated by
even one
>or two computers, with users watching YouTube and studiously
downloading
>copyrighted material.

We do not need such assumptions. We need a proper network design with 
The backbone technology dimensioned to the needs. 

Also, we want and need a node to be able to move transparently within
the LoWPAN.
In particular the node might change its neighbors and even its edge
router over time.

So as you remarked, all the addresses should be globally unique across
the domain 
defined by the subnet. 


Pascal


_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to