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

[Martin Turon <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

Yes, section 11 refers to the mesh header defined in section 5, but does
not claim exclusive use of it.

My point really is to inspire people to rethink the long held dogma that
the mesh header and mesh-under are synonymous, and counter proposed text
that codifies that view.

They need not be viewed that way, and my reading of RFC4944 doesn't mandate
that the two be equivalent.  In fact, "Appendix A. Alternatives for
Delivery of Frames in a Mesh", covers some of the alternate use cases,
design ideas, and pros/cons of using the mesh header at layer 2 or 3.

Martin

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2014, at 20:24, Martin Turon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The mesh header is very much in use today, and not purely for mesh-under
> conceptual designs.
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I think it would benefit this discussion if we could learn more about
> these use cases.
> In RFC 4944, the “Mesh Header” definitely was meant for mesh-under; we
> even have a section called
>
>   11.  Frame Delivery in a Link-Layer Mesh*)
>
> to discuss the use of the Mesh Header in forwarding adaptation layer
> packets between link-layer entities.  But that of course doesn’t mean there
> aren’t other ways to make good use of the Mesh Header — I’d like to learn
> more about those.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> *) The short forms “mesh-under” and “route-over” weren’t as much in use in
> 2007, so this is a long form trying to say “mesh-under”.
>
>