On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:09:57 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... Again, we're not saying the IETF is not doing this. We're saying this particular WG is not (cuz it's focusing on IPv6). > 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. Ok. yes, it does make sense to document it. Technically, it makes less sense than v6 cuz whereas with the current proposal we have the v6 header in common packets down to 2 octets (and it's straightforward to reduce that to only 1 octet), it's not as easy to see this happening with the more unpredictable IPv4 header. > >> 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? Makes sense. > >> 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? Perhaps, yes, gotta see how the WG review goes. thanks, -gabriel _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf