[6lowpan] Comment on PAN IDs section in draft-bormann-6lowpan-roadmap-00

"Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com> Mon, 04 April 2011 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <esko.dijk@philips.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D3C3A682E for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.550, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zS2bZ3O2ngRb for <6lowpan@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from VA3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34143A6813 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail50-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.235) by VA3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.7.40.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.8; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:45 +0000
Received: from mail50-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail50-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113A41503C8; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -16
X-BigFish: VPS-16(zzbb2cK217bL15d6O9251Jzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPVD:NLI; H:smtpx.philips.com; RD:smtpx.philips.com; EFVD:NLI
Received: from mail50-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail50-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1301933743400872_18876; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.245]) by mail50-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA0A8B0056; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpx.philips.com (168.87.56.20) by VA3EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.7.99.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.8; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:15:39 +0000
Received: from nlamsexh02.connect1.local (172.16.153.23) by connect1.philips.com (172.16.156.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.106.1; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:16:05 +0200
Received: from NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local ([172.16.157.42]) by nlamsexh02.connect1.local ([172.16.153.23]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:15:38 +0200
From: "Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:14:54 +0200
Thread-Topic: Comment on PAN IDs section in draft-bormann-6lowpan-roadmap-00
Thread-Index: Acvy428BEC+F9qH4TomE4wGDriN4NA==
Message-ID: <A337AA36B3B96E4D853E6182B2F27AE2C76B16911D@NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A337AA36B3B96E4D853E6182B2F27AE2C76B16911DNLCLUEXM03con_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com
Cc: 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>
Subject: [6lowpan] Comment on PAN IDs section in draft-bormann-6lowpan-roadmap-00
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:14:04 -0000

Dear Carsten,

here my small comments on the current draft-bormann-6lowpan-roadmap-00:

"As the use of PAN identifiers in 6LoWPAN networks has since become less and less meaningful,"
perhaps good to explain why this is the case. Was it more meaningful some years ago? Or is it simply less used.
A distinction could be made here also between 1) using PAN IDs in the 802.15.4 radios and 2) using PAN IDs in 6LoWPAN as defined in Section 6 of RFC 4944.

"It is therefore RECOMMENDED to employ a PAN identifier of zero with 6LoWPAN."
-> maybe good to make clear that implementations may still use non-zero PAN IDs of their choice at the 802.15.4 level? Only they do not use it in 6LoWPAN as defined in Section 6 of RFC 4944.

best regards,

Esko Dijk


________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.