Re: [Roll] [6tisch] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 04 December 2014 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AD01AD4C1; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:32:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H9ZoYC-uVJNg; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF80E1AD4BB; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B4E2002A; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:35:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C7381637F4; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:32:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBE3637EA; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:32:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A88B15@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <20141127133537.6084.69209.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A7DE36@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <5A4C4F93-2667-4510-8193-F0201219F816@nestlabs.com> <85AC0776-88D7-4019-8BB1-B0E13B9F3E64@cisco.com> <CAH=LnKRe3OUnTtWzWdwmBP_kyyR81Q_VWYgtYzWr5EUmrzTxWQ@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD848A88B15@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:32:33 -0500
Message-ID: <13850.1417710753@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/3NjjKdbtUwIGuiV9O1oR82mqlLY
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, Martin Turon <mturon@nestlabs.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tisch] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch-00.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:32:36 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > One question inspired by this is how would newer dispatch
    > implementations deploy to a legacy dispatch network?  Imagine a large
    > open network spanning a city, with multiple versions of 6lo, and
    > multiple routing protocols running on top.  It's a very academic,
    > futuristic example, but triggers some basic questions like: how is
    > versioning handled in 6lo?  I believe versioning in 6lo currently is
    > always done at deployment time.  It may be worth considering a way to
    > add an optional version dispatch in RHI to signal what version of 6lo
    > is being used, so mixed version networks in the future can have a
    > better chance of coexisting. 

I think that we will manage to version 6lo(wpan) only by create seperate
L2 networks... and I think that's okay, we have L3 mesh.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-