(now limited to the 6lowpan list) On May 10, 2010, at 13:38 , Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Zach, > > You're not addressing my question. My question is how do you do mesh > under with 2 routers and the answer cannot be route over. So? > If the draft does not answer that question and cannot point on a draft > that does, then, no, it does not stand on its feet, sorry. This configuration is clearly out-of-scope for the base mechanism draft (nd-09). When you write that extended LoWPAN draft then there is something to reference. Anyways, mesh-under just a special case of route-over where all LoWPAN nodes happen to be hosts one IP hop away from the 6LBR. One solution is to run a routing protocol over the backbone as with route-over to solve this. > > The vote that lead to 08 was based on the assumption that we could make > a front end that could be common to multiple backend techniques, DHCP, > whiteboard, etc... > This assumption was wrong. Erik demonstrated that it already failed with > DHCP before we even tried to make it work for whiteboard. So it's > simply moot. I think the draft needs the complete picture and that > includes the registrar. DHCPv6 works just fine with nd-09. Let's write the extended LoWPAN draft first before saying that nd-09 is broken. What exactly are you missing here from nd-09, is there some specific option or codes or what that would be needed by your upcoming draft? > The desire to separate the ND proxy piece is different because there are > alternate ways like an SGP over the backbone, so I understand that split > a lot better. The whiteboard is not tied with the ND proxy. It comes > with mesh under as a solution to resolve a device address and do DAD. > Something that the router registration cannot do as soon as you have 2 > routers. Nor do we claim it does that in the nd-09 draft. Of course if you want to enable DAD to the edge with multiple routers advertising the same prefix(es) then you somehow need to synchronize the DAD tables between routers. How to do this is out of scope for nd-09 in my opinion, it belongs in some other draft or is implementation specific. > Finally, I've not seen a consensus to rewrite ND from 08 to what it is > today. I've seen Geoff at the mike in favor, and you saying don't worry > I'll work with the author of ND simple and sort that out. Hardly a > consensus to me. Anyway, I consider the outcome, think that you could > have sorted better, and propose ins and outs. If you're so sure you > don't need feedback, just ignore it. Come on, this is more like general complaining about the WG direction than comments on this draft. We are happy to listen to draft comments, but then let's make them on the draft under its assumptions. WG direction is an issue for the chairs... Zach > > Cheers, > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Zach Shelby [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 11:55 AM >> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >> Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] how does a node get an IP address >> >> Pascal, >> >> I think you're being a bit paranoid here. Let me try to correct some >> misunderstandings. >> >> Again, I think you are fighting yourself here with regard to prefix >> dissemination. 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. >> >> Regarding InstanceIDs and other RPL specific host issues, there is > nothing in >> nd-09 preventing that either. Nor can a 6lowpan document specify >> something for a host to do which is RPL related. If RPL wants to > specify some >> ND option to be carried in RAs with regard to flow labels - then go > for it. But >> don't complain about ND here... >> >> Regarding the extended LoWPAN functionality you are referring to > below. >> The WG consensus after Hiroshima was to split the ND draft into a base > draft >> (which was done in nd-08 already!) and a separate Extended LoWPAN > draft. >> As I have told you, you need to find the time to write that extended > LoWPAN >> draft (let's do it) and explain how to achieve these kinds of > topologies. I'm >> happy to help, but my hands are full right now. >> >> The WG consensus in Anaheim was to make a clean re-write of the WG >> document integrating the NS/NA mechanism from nd-simple and the base >> mechanism of address registration from nd-08. This is what we did. I > believe >> the result of this is a very good draft which specifies the > host-router interface >> and definitely stands on its own feet as it is mesh-under, route-over > and >> routing protocol independent as it should be. >> >> On May 10, 2010, at 12:06 , Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>> >>> For all I know ND 09 is broken while ND 07 was not. >> >> The WG consensus was the opposite, sorry. >> >>> My suggestion to >>> resolve the issues I see: >>> >>> - put the whiteboard interaction back in the base spec so the spec > is >>> standing on its own 2 feet. >> >> nd-09 does have the ability to do DAD to the edge of the LoWPAN... >> >>> - let the route over problem propagation to RPL (that's the PIO/RIO >>> propagation) >> >> It DOES!!!! Remember RPL is not *the* only routing protocol. I can >> implement DYMO on a LoWPAN and it will need the prefix dissemination >> method from nd-09. >> >>> - make a separate spec for the ND proxy piece. We have already text >>> from Zach, Carsten and I that can be used >> >> Pascal, you know very well that is your AP. This was also already > decided by >> the working group already after Hiroshima. >> >> Argh, >> Zach >> >> -- >> Zach Shelby, Head of Research, Sensinode Ltd. >> http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" >> http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" >> Mobile: +358 40 7796297 > -- Zach Shelby, Head of Research, Sensinode Ltd. http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
