I'm not sure any formal and/or detailed specification of a non-RPL network is required in this case...just the understanding that there are Non-RPL IPv6 networks that could utilize 6TiSCH in a mesh of nodes where everyone can hear each other (no L3 routing required); and, this network may not require interconnection with a RPL network. I don't *think* we have included text in the 6TiSCH architecture document that mandates RPL, so some allowance/guidance regarding network startup/joining in a non-RPL scenario might be prudent.
That being said, I think I'm going to look into this a bit more to see if there is something that could be noted in a future errata. It could be a high-level comment that would say something like..."In any network where "join assistants" are used, nodes should not start beaconing until they are fully Capable of performing in the role of a join assistant, providing any and all services/information necessary to assist nodes in joining the network." Randy -----Original Message----- From: 6tisch <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 7:57 PM To: tisch <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6tisch] 6TiSCH Minimal Spec Turner, Randy <[email protected]> wrote: > So there are no known interop issues with non-RPL minimal deployments if > different vendors choose their own EB policies? 1) I think you'd need to explain how a non-RPL minimal deployment would work, and how would it interact at the routing level with an RPL nodes present. Once you've done that, then we can sort out the EB policy. I can't understand how it could work right now. 2) I think that the EB rank issue is a subject for draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon, assuming it was in fact adopted.... -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
