[6lowpan] Identifying a host

Dario Tedeschi <dat@exegin.com> Wed, 29 February 2012 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dat@exegin.com>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8991421F883B for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CKTNp8w0WWUH for <6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C628F21F8897 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wicr5 with SMTP id r5so2593677wic.31 for <6lowpan@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dat@exegin.com designates 10.180.24.7 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.24.7;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dat@exegin.com designates 10.180.24.7 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dat@exegin.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.24.7]) by 10.180.24.7 with SMTP id q7mr47547079wif.14.1330514233405 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.24.7 with SMTP id q7mr37853009wif.14.1330514233356; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.26] (196-210-130-71.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.210.130.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hb10sm85635632wib.10.2012.02.29.03.17.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F4E0934.4060000@exegin.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:17:08 +0200
From: Dario Tedeschi <dat@exegin.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6lowpan@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnqFwCEHV68LnGi/2Pk8ZPpWBSCI4UUixivQdGTMpOFa8hUkx5iNE7oC/fP94/7x3cGBGik
Subject: [6lowpan] Identifying a host
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:17:15 -0000

I was wondering if it would be useful to add an R (Router) flag to the 
ARO, in 6LoWPAN ND, to indicate whether a node is a router or a host. It 
would be very handy for route-over topologies (i.e. RPL).

When a node registers an address through its default router, that router 
needs to know whether the node is operating as a router as well or just 
a host. If it's a host, the router can add a host route to that node, 
indicating that that node is outside of the routing domain and that the 
node expects traffic forwarded on it's behalf.

The reason for choosing the ARO to add the flag is that NS does not have 
the R flag like the NA does, and since it's likely that only an NS+ARO 
will ever be sent from a registering node and the ARO is specific to 
6LoWPAN, adding an R flag to the ARO would seem the logical choice.

Dario