On Nov 27, 2009, at 13:39, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: > interoperability
The idea behind the split of the draft was that, at the host-router interface, it does not matter whether/in what way DAD is performed, so 6LoWPAN hosts will be interoperable with any way we do this. Now, within the "fabric" (set of 6LoWPAN routers and possibly edge routers), the interoperability becomes more interesting. In particular it would be useful to enable routers with minimal memory requirements to work together with larger routers that provide additional services. (That was also the idea between the router/ER dichotomy, but it seems we need a more flexible assignment of functions.) It would be nice if all the alternative ways of running the fabric I mentioned in my split proposal wouldn't lead to different, non-interoperable protocols. I think that can be done, but a design with many options is significantly more complex than one that can be limited to a single model. Fortunately, this complexity is limited to the routers/ERs; hosts don't have to care. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
