I agree we should move forward with this draft without adding additional features.
-Joseph ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:00:04 -0400 From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]> To: Erik Nordmark <[email protected]>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: 6lowpan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: Re: "Advertize on Behalf" flag in ARO Message-ID: <16d60f43ca0b724f8052d7e9323565d71b8faf2...@eusaacms0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Pascal and Nicolas, I am in agreement with the following reasons (by Erik) as to why we don't want to add the TID/sequence# in the ARO message. As discussed many times in the wg that the goal of this 6lowpan-nd work is to provide simple optimized neighbor discovery functionality of the low-power IPv6 network. This is independent of routing protocol functionalities such that it works with multiple routing protocols on top of it. If RPL or other routing protocol needs a specific information to pass around, it could do that as an option aka future extension of 6lowpan-nd. We already decided/presented in the Prague wg meeting and the consensus was to move forward with the 6lowpan-nd as it is plus the editorial changes discussed at the meeting slides. Besides the dependency of 6lowpan-nd on a specific routing protocol( such as RPL or backbone routing), I have a major concern including a feature like sequence# in the ARO message at this point for supporting a corner case without knowing its larger impact. As for MIP, I am not sure if we want to run MIPv6 as it is in the 6lowpan network. Our design goal for 6lowpan-nd-basic is to provide the core functionality and then build things on top of it on a modular basis as needed. Please help in proceeding toward the basic 6lowpan-nd work done first. Best regards, -Samita | A host isn't aware of whether the routers speak IS-IS or OSPF, so why do the hosts need to be aware of RPL by | passing some TID around? > I think ND has the same need as MIP for a TID == Sequence # . We know > of MIP; We know of RPL. We know of the backbone router operation. We > know we'll need the TID and we know exactly why. I think we should > have it in the 6LowPAN ND spec right away to avoid interop issues when > we add RPL and BR operations. | I don't see a need in 6lowpan-nd for a TID; the protocol works fine without it. | I think RPL needs to be improved to deal with reality. Isn't there a desire for RPL to handle 4861 hosts? | | | Those would never know about a TID. | Erik _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
