Re: [6lowpan] Re: [RSN] The need for RSN

On Jun 22, 2007, at 2:23 AM, Eunsook "Eunah" Kim wrote:

> Hmm..
> I'm a bit confused by your discussion.
> From Geoff's proposed recharter text, It seemed to be clear for me
> that so-called "mesh-under routing" is 6lowpan's concern, while L3
> routing is RSN's concern.

Quite right.

>
> We need to find out if we CAN take exisiting solutions or if we NEED
> to design a new one. Clearly for me, to find out this answer is
> 6lowpan's work.
>

As far as L3 routing is concerned, that task WOULD be the one of the  
POTENTIAL
new WG work.

If everybody agrees, it would be nice to go back to the technical work.

Cheers.

JP.

> -eunsook
>
>
> On 6/22/07, Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Geoff,
>>
>> Clarification to me.
>>
>> L2 mesh routing is made by 6lowpan taking
>> 802.15.5 into consideration, and L3 mesh routing
>> is perhaps made by another WG regardless of
>> MANET WG deliverables such as DYMO/AODV
>> based on 6lowpan L3 mesh routing requirement.
>>
>> -- Daniel Park
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:geoff-ietf@mulligan.org]
>> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:50 AM
>> > To: Daniel Park
>> > Cc: 'JP Vasseur'; 'Eunsook "Eunah" Kim';
>> > 6lowpan@lists.ietf.org; rsn@ietf.org;
>> > g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com; 'Mark Townsley'
>> > Subject: RE: [6lowpan] Re: [RSN] The need for RSN
>> >
>> > Daniel,
>> >   I still don't understand your question.  Do you not think
>> > that 6lowpan
>> > should generate a PS document on L2 routing?  This has been in the
>> > re-charter proposal for months.
>> >
>> > I think that there may be networks that will not use L2 mesh and  
>> will
>> > instead opt for L3 routing.  There might well be other networks  
>> that
>> > will use L3 routing between L2 mesh networks.
>> >
>> >       geoff
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 09:37 +0900, Daniel Park wrote:
>> > > > >> It was my understanding that while 6lowpan may consider
>> > > > "mesh under"
>> > > > >> alternatives (layer 2 routing), it would rely upon a group
>> > > > >> like RSN to deal with "route over" (layer 3 routing) and  
>> that
>> > > > >> 6lowpan would provide requirements to RSN.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't think so Geoff. Originally, this deliverable was for
>> > > > > Proposed Standard Document. Are you saying 6lowpan
>> > > > > mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ?
>> > > > > Absolutely, NO.
>> > > > There is no such deliverables ...
>> > >
>> > > I said:
>> > > 4. Produce "6lowpan Mesh Routing" to evaluate different mesh  
>> routing
>> > > protocols for use within 6lowpans. While most routing  
>> protocols are
>> > > defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan requires a mesh routing  
>> protocol
>> > > below the IP layer. "6lowpan Mesh Routing" may be several  
>> proposed
>> > > standard documents.
>> > >
>> > > So, are you thinking we need both solutions as layer 2 routing
>> > > by 6lowpan WG and layer 3 routing by RSN for mesh routing ?
>> > > Or, 6lowpan only work for RSN requirement ?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan