Hi 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.
[Pascal] I think that we agree. If a mesh-under network where nodes are not one hop away from an LBR is out of scope, then the draft works fine. To be able to accommodate more than 1 router in the mesh-under network, we need either route over, or the registrar we called the whiteboard. In previous understanding, a LoWPAN would be extended via a backbone, and I expected a different, faster technology there. If we take away the WB from the base spec, then an LoWPAN becomes extended as soon as we add a second router onto it. Would that be your new definition? > > 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? > [Pascal] My other point exactly. We do not know till we have the other Draft. I thought having the WB inside the base spec would avoid that hassle. But obviously we can have 2 specs pointing on one another. Or 3, since I figure that the ND proxy is really a separate beast. What does the group think? Pascal _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
