Subject: [6lowpan] #103: IESG comment #12 (by Tim Polk) - Coexistence of Mesh Under and Route Over in the same LoWPAN

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:34:36 -0000

#103: IESG comment #12 (by Tim Polk) - Coexistence of Mesh Under and Route Over
in the same LoWPAN
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |       Owner:     
     Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  routing-requirements    |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 This document seems to assume that a LoWPAN will be either Route Over or
 Mesh Under in its entirety.  This is not an obvious result.  I would
 expect that a Mesh Under could live transparently within a Route Over
 LoWPAN.  (Essentially, the ER in the Mesh Under LoWPAN from Figure 3 would
 be LoWPAN router in the Figure 2 Route Over network.)

 If this scenario is realistic, the document should address any routing
 requirements that would be introduced (or note that no new requirements
 are established by the hybrid scenario.  [Note: it is not as clear to me
 whether a Route Over in a Mesh Under makes sense.]

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/103>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:31:13 -0000

#103: IESG comment #12 (by Tim Polk) - Coexistence of Mesh Under and Route Over
in the same LoWPAN
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |        Owner:        
     Type:  enhancement             |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:        
Component:  routing-requirements    |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                       |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by carlesgo@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 This scenario is technically possible, but 6LoWPAN is unlikely to be
 implemented as a hybrid scenario. This hybrid scenario can increase
 complexity of nodes because they have to contain both solutions.
 Simplicity is a very important feature in 6LoWPAN. We haven't seen any
 interest in hybrid scenarios in deployment cases.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/103#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>