Hi Pekka,
Thanks for the comments.
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... ").
Where was the determination made that adhoc routing and AODV in particular is
the best fit in these scenarios?
There are various (many, actually) "mesh" protocols used or proposed for
these scenarios (e.g., for so-called wireless sensor networks), and it seems
like every day there is a new one. There's even TinyOS implementations
of several of these inclkuding AODV, DSDV, Mintrouter, and several others.
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).
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.
-gabriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf