Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing Requirements
"Dominik Kaspar" <dominik@etri.re.kr> Fri, 02 March 2007 07:34 UTC
Return-path: <6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HN2HU-0006j7-U4; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:34:20 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HN2HS-0006ir-Bb for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:34:18 -0500
Received: from email2.etri.re.kr ([129.254.16.132] helo=email2.etri.info) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HN2HQ-0006TM-KA for 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:34:18 -0500
Received: from etri964caf1384 ([129.254.112.135]) by email2.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:39:03 +0900
Message-ID: <00bf01c75c9d$2db0f0a0$8770fe81@etri964caf1384>
From: Dominik Kaspar <dominik@etri.re.kr>
To: Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
References: <00e001c75ada$4f4068a0$8770fe81@etri964caf1384> <374005f30702280900x745fa0c5w5e1c4d225184d075@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing Requirements
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:34:14 +0900
Organization: ETRI
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2007 07:39:03.0178 (UTC) FILETIME=[D97C6EA0:01C75C9D]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c
Cc: 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org, manet@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org
Ian, all, Ian, thanks a lot for your fast reply and detailed commenting on the "6LoWPAN Mesh Routing Requirements" draft [http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq-00.txt]. I'm taking the right to post this answer to both the 6lowpan and MANET working groups, as MANET folks might be interested in this discussion as well. Ian, I find your inputs very reasonable, but they made me feel that the term "6lowpan" is not yet defined precisely enough to set up a strict set of 6lowpan routing requirements. For example, you give me the scenario of a 6lowpan network, in which all devices are powered and power usage is not important. But if I read the "6lowpan Problem Statement" [http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/draft-ietf-6lowpan-problem], I'm not sure if such a set-up could still be called a 6lowpan, because that document explains that in a LoWPAN "typically, some or all devices are battery operated." This draft's intention is to provide the primary design goals of 6lowpan mesh routing and to stimulate responses for defining a set of requirements. The requirements I listed are still as vague as the term "6lowpan" itself, not at all proven and not fixed yet. I will keep all of your detailed comments on the requirements in mind for a next revision. Also, it has already been my intention to include a Section about what exactly the differences are between routing in a MANET and in a LoWPAN. Best regards, Dominik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> To: "Dominik Kaspar" <dominik@etri.re.kr> Cc: <6lowpan@lists.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing Requirements > > Good to see some requirements for 6lowpan routing. > > Personally, I'd like to know what can't be done with MANET protocols > and why. Hopefully, a future version will include this information. If > you have any comments please send them to me or the MANET list. > > Ian > > I have some quick comments about the document. > > I don't think LQI by itself should be used. LQI must be matched with > other indicators to make good decisions. LQI can be bad for routing. > Similarly, shortest path can be bad. > > I think that operating with low routing state should be an > additionally goal. For example, if devices have only 32 forwarding > entries available. This fact could probably be captured in one of the > existing sections. > > Regarding the requirements section: > > I think that R2 is a bad requirement. I would instead say that routing > should be efficient. Efficiency can be defined in many ways. There > might be 6lowpan networks where all devices are power so power usage > is not important. Alternatively there might be nodes that choose not > to participate even though they have energy. I think that requiring > minimal energy routing is too harsh and unrealistic. > > R3. I would say that 6lowpan works below IP. Therefore, > interconnection is not seamless but below IP. Some device will need to > bridge (PAN coordinator or gateway) this gap. For example, RFD edge > devices will likely not include this capability. > > R4. I'm not sure that routing needs to be aware of sleeping nodes. We > could reverse the requirement and say that sleeping nodes must be > aware of routing. Or we could create a routing protocol that should > work independent of the sleep schedule. For example, flooding. > > R5. How do we measure simplicity and robustness? How much simplicity > and robustness are required by the various 6lowpan players? > > R6. How mobile? How dynamic? > > R7. Are you referring to IPv6 ND or routing (L2 in this case) > neighbor(hood) discovery? > > R9. What is the scalability requirement? How many nodes & at what density? > > R10. Is L2 (WEP like) security enough? > > Ian > > > On 2/27/07, Dominik Kaspar <dominik@etri.re.kr> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> A new Internet-Draft has just been submitted to emphasize the importance >> of >> mesh routing in LoWPANs. I believe that well thought-out mesh routing is >> a >> vital precondition for fully functional LoWPANs and should be discussed >> in >> more detail within the 6lowpan working group. >> >> Comments are welcomed for the Internet-Draft titled: >> "Design Goals and Requirements for 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing" >> >> Abstract: >> This document defines the problem statement, design goals, and >> requirements >> for mesh routing in low-power wireless personal area networks (LoWPANs). >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dokaspar-6lowpan-routreq-00.txt >> >> Best regards, >> Dominik >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
- [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing Requ… Dominik Kaspar
- Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Ian Chakeres
- Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Dominik Kaspar
- Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … 김용운
- Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Ian Chakeres
- RE: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Kris Pister
- RE: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Eunsook Kim
- RE: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- RE: Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Rout… KIM Yong-Woon
- Re: [6lowpan] For comments: 6LoWPAN Mesh Routing … Philip Levis