> On a related topic.... > 6lowpan network have the particularity that you cannot use on-link prefix > due to the non-transitivity of the wireless links. This means we need to > tell routers how to reach neighboring IPv6 hosts. So essentially 6lowpan-ND > is using a registration mechanism to establish a "route" between the router > and the host. > It is not clear to me whether this is the role of ND
The role of ND here is doing the host-router neighbor discovery. > or of the routing > protocol. The role of RPL here is to disseminate the host route on towards other routers. > I think it could actually be both. Hosts should not need to speak routing protocols. > Hence the questions: > - Are IPv6 hosts possible in a 6lowpan network where the RPL protocol is > used? I would consider it a major failure if RPL didn't support networks with hosts. (Networks without hosts, i.e., all-router networks, are certainly possible, but in a constrained node/network we are talking about a relatively high lower bound on the complexity of nodes or a *very* simple routing protocol. Of course, the routing protocol could distinguish three instead of two complexity classes of nodes, supporting something like a "stub router" [a router that cannot forward]. Still, that class would need to implement some parts of the routing protocol, imposing constraints either way or both.) > - Should IPv6 hosts be part of a RPL topology (as leaf node) or should IPv6 > hosts use the 6lowpan-ND host-router spec? As I said, hosts shouldn't need to speak RPL. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
