Re: [Roll] [roll] #128: Trickle multicast could be considered in other applications?

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

> I really wonder about these MPL-ignorant nodes which are part of an LLN mesh (and therefore, I think), speak RPL.
> Can you tell me more about them so that I am less skeptical about them being mythical.

Nodes that are fully MPL-ignorant could be rightfully called mythical, at least I haven't seen an implementation or specification of such nodes within an MPL-enabled LLN mesh. I'm just considering the option that there could be Hosts that are unaware of the forwarding protocol used, whose multicast traffic needs to be interfaced to the MPL domain. If that is an option that no implementer would ever go for anyway, we can safely stop this discussion I think.

Background: A similar situation can be found in the ZigBee-IP specification, that defines "ZIP hosts" in the LLN mesh which do not implement the RPL routing protocol. These hosts send their IP packets to their parent "ZIP router" which further handles the packet using RPL. Sleepy Nodes are for example always ZIP hosts and never ZIP routers. In ZigBee-IP these Hosts are RPL-ignorant, but not MPL-ignorant.  My idea was that there could be another specification X that would define the Hosts also to be MPL-ignorant, for example to save energy in Sleepy Nodes.

regards,
Esko

________________________________
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.