On May 10, 2010, at 11:55, Zach Shelby wrote: > We have already agreed that nothing in nd-09 prevents RPL from disseminating > the PIOs. In fact, it specifically says that if the routing protocol does > that already, then great. Other routing protocol might need the prefix > dissemination option in nd-09, thus the spec "stands on its own feet". So as > far as the 6lowpan WG is concerned there is nothing to discuss. It is up to > the ROLL working group to discuss if and how it wants to disseminate prefix > information to RPL routers.
+1. However, please note also that a LoWPAN needs more information disseminated than the PIOs. Unless RPL is extended to carry compression context as well, it seems more logical to do all this network configuration dissemination in 6LoWPAN-ND. (No, you don't *need* compression context in a LoWPAN, but it gets significantly less efficient without it. And it breaks spectacularly if the compression context gets inconsistent between nodes.) Both compression context and prefix information is likely to change on relatively slow timescales (days/weeks), which is another reason why it seems appropriate to use a configuration protocol for the dissemination of both, rather than a routing protocol operating in terms of seconds/minutes. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
