Re: [Roll] [roll] #105: trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain

["Dijk, Esko" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter, Michael,

a question from your last 2 emails is the following:
if multiple LoWPAN networks are assigned the same 802.15.4 channel (which is likely as Peter explained), would they not be assigned a different Pan-ID to logically separate them? So for the drawing that shows the 6 border routers case, there would be no mutual connectivity between dissemination regions anyway.

A related question is whether nodes from different LoWPANs are allowed, or not, to mutually communicate. (I could not find text on this in RFC 6282 and RFC 6775 (6lowpan-nd) ).
If they are allowed that leads to some strange implications, for example a node in LoWPAN1 sends a link-local packet which is received by a node in LoWPAN2 even though it is on a different link (and different IPv6 prefix).

I can put this question on the 6lowpan list, if needed.

regards,
Esko


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of peter van der Stok
Sent: Wednesday 14 November 2012 9:38
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #105: trickle-mcast: how to determine scope of MPL domain

Hi Michael,

sorry to be confusing.

Again, this is not a real installation, just an example of what to
expect.
Surface area can be something like 100x30 square meters.

I show 6 border routers coinciding with 6 disseminatiuon areas due to a
remark by Dario where he asked if it is possible that multiple
disseminations areas can be present in one PAN.
The answer is yes, because giving a border router to each dissemination
area (6) is quite expensive.

Concerning the use of the same channel.
When we have one PAN, one channel is used, that is clear.
Having several PANs, it perspires that often only 2 channels of the
ones specified by 802.15.4 provide good communication ([presence of
802.11, etc.).

Several other additional organisational boundary conditions can dictate
the channel numbers.

Hope this helps,

peter


Michael Richardson schreef op 2012-11-12 23:07:
> splitting up your text to emphasize a few things:
>
>>>>>> "peter" == peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> writes:
>     peter> The nodes in all networks use the same communication
> channel.
>
> ...
>
>     peter> not forward the message.  In this network configuration
> the
>     peter> dissemination area is identical with a network.  From a
> cost
>     peter> perspective (less border routers) it is more realistic if
> one
>     peter> network covers the whole floor.
>
> But, in your diagram, you have 6 border routers?!?
>
> I don't understand why nodes in area1 and area2 should use the same
> communication channel.

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

________________________________
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.