Is IPv4 packet encapsulation specifically out of scope? Spell this out. Do IEEE and the other communities agree with this approach? (Not that I would disagree -- just hoping that someone else doesn't go on to invent the v4 adaptation if the IETF doesn't do it..)
It's not a goal for *this* working group. Other working groups or even an individual submission can take care of that if they see a need for it. So far few individuals have expressed interest in this (but yes some have asked). I thought this was pretty explicit, after all the name of the WG is "IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4" (not "IPv4... ").
Yes, it was clear that this WG would only deal with IPv6.
It was not clear *why* this WG is being chartered to only deal with IPv6.
What I fear is that unless the IETF does v4, someone else (ITU?) will...
In any case, this could be clarified in the charter with a short paragraph or a couple of sentences stating that there has been very little interest in IPv4 adaptation so far, thus only addressing v6.
Where was the determination made that adhoc routing and AODV in particular is the best fit in these scenarios?
The papers and the literature also abound (you can look it up via google). The most definitive answer is that *NO* single protocol is the best fit for all scenarios. From a practical and engineering point of view, AODV is known to work (there's even open source TinyOS code), and is also the choice taken by ZigBee (so it makes less sense to go with something completely different).
Should some of these reasons be captured in a sentence or two?
How is that relevant to the IPv6-over-layer2 adaptation?
Mesh topologies are expected to be common in 15.4 networks. However, a default mesh algorithm was not specified by the 802.15.4 spec. The idea is that whoever layers itself directly on top of 15.4 will provide that. Zigbee has done so. If we are to layer IPv6 on top of 15.4, then going the extra step and saying (use this mesh as a default algorithm) is expected by the community who would potentially deploy such devices.
Would AODV be extended to route based on layer2 addressing?
Exactly, it would exchange routing information about the 15.4 addresses which are IEEE 64 bit by default (though 16 bit are also possible if doled out by a coordinator), just as it has already exchange 128 bit addresses (AODV for IPv6) and 16 bit addresses (AODV for TinyOS).
This seems to go out of scope of the main v6 over Lowpan spec.
Above I explained why it is expected to be done by the WG. Not saying this particular spec is the right place or not, though.
I can live with that. I just think the IPv6 over Lowpan spec is the wrong place to do this. Maybe add another deliverable on Applying AODV in (IPv6) Lowpan networks?
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf