Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: Re: "Advertize on Behalf" flag in ARO

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 <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)"
	<pthubert@cisco.com>, "nicolas.riou@schneider-electric.com"
	<nicolas.riou@schneider-electric.com>
Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: Re:  "Advertize on Behalf" flag in ARO
Message-ID:
	<16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D71B8FAF2786@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
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan