Subject: [6lowpan] Re: [RSN] The need for RSN

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:39:02 +0900

My 2 cents are in line;

> The slide (see the pdf above) is pretty clear about the scope of the "mesh
> routing" item: in 6lowpan we are not chartered
> to develop a new routing protocol (as in the algorithm, or the engine to
> generate routing tables). We have something
> that looks like consensus (just need the chairs to declare it so) on
> *adapting* routing protocols developed
> elsewhere. 6lowpan cannot develop protocols cuz it's not in the routing
> area.
> /snip/

In my understanding, we had some concerns to work routing solutions at
6lowpan, as you said it's not in the routing area. However, it doesn't
mean that 6lowpan doesn't need to consider routing related issues for
6lowpan. IMHO, to make a solution and to handle routing related issues
are different.

If RSN successfully stages in the IETF, surely, RSN would be a good
place to discuss routing issues for sensor networks. However, as you
said below, for 6lowpan, sub-IP operations for multi-hop delivery
should be considered, as RSN considers L3 routing.

In my understanding, 6lowpan can be one of the applications for RSN.
One way to consider 6lowpan routing issues is to put 6lowpan specific
mesh-under routing requirements to RSN, as RSN is now gathering
various requirements based on different applications. 6lowpan can
discuss its own requirements with RSN, or input the requirements to
RSN.

-eunsook

> As I understand it, RSN operates at layer 3, and it is arguing that there is
> room for another multi-hop routing WG in the
> routing area. Perhaps MANET can't really satisfy requirements for wireless
> sensors. Whether this is solved by
> integrating the RSN charter/deliverables into a re-chartered MANET, or  by
> starting a new WG,
> from 6lowpan's point of view, 6lowpan can benefit from the resultant
> protocols.
> Of course, adaptation from layer 3 to sub-IP operation will be required,
> along the lines of the
> existing independent submissions in 6lowpan.
> My 2 motes (hopefully one day those will cost 1 cent each...)
>
> -gabriel
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dominik Kaspar <[email-masked]>
> To: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:17:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [RSN] The need for RSN
>
> Geoff,
>
> As far as I know, there has not been any consensus yet to what is in
> the scope of 6lowpan and what is not. But concering the RSN/R2LN
> efforts, it would be favorable to find consensus as soon as possible,
> so that it's clear where to dedicate new work to.
>
> Dominik
>
> On 6/8/07, Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > I would like to reiterate that I think that the work RSN group has
> > suggested taking on is very important to my working group - 6lowpan.
> >
> > Our working group is looking to recharter and the scope of the work will
> > be focused on issues related to interoperability for 6lowpan networks.
> > This include things like MIC identifiers, alternative mesh headers,
> > security, ...
> >
> > What is not in the scope is routing.  I think the RSN concept is
> > important in that the devices we are anticipating have significant
> > constraints (power, memory, processing) and as such the current set of
> > protocols and development is probably not appropriate for these types of
> > devices.
> >
> >        geoff
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RSN mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn
>
>

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:58:07 +0900

Geoff,

I'm glad that it seems like we are talking in the same language. :)

-eunsook

On 6/20/07, Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It was my understanding that while 6lowpan may consider "mesh under"
> alternatives (layer 2 routing), it would rely upon a group like RSN to
> deal with "route over" (layer 3 routing) and that 6lowpan would provide
> requirements to RSN.
>
>        geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:07:20 -0600

geoff

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:00:29 -0400

Sounds like we are all in sync then ...

JP.

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:06:48 +0900

> alternatives (layer 2 routing), it would rely upon a group 
> like RSN to deal with "route over" (layer 3 routing) and that 
> 6lowpan would provide requirements to RSN.

I don't think so Geoff. Originally, this deliverable was for
Proposed Standard Document. Are you saying 6lowpan
mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ?
Absolutely, NO.

I don't care if you as chair are leaning to RSN for this
matter based on AD's agreement, but just wanted to
clarify your mis-interpretation from 6lowpan perspevtive.

Also, IEEE 802.15.5 is already developing L2 mesh
routing for IEEE 802.15.4. What alternative means
in your mention ?

-- Daniel Park

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:01:14 -0400

> mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ?

There is no such deliverables ...

> clarify your mis-interpretation from 6lowpan perspevtive.

Daniel, as you know 6lowpan is about to recharter ...

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:37:36 +0900

> There is no such deliverables ...

I said:
4. Produce "6lowpan Mesh Routing" to evaluate different mesh routing
protocols for use within 6lowpans. While most routing protocols are
defined above the IP layer, 6lowpan requires a mesh routing protocol
below the IP layer. "6lowpan Mesh Routing" may be several proposed
standard documents.

So, are you thinking we need both solutions as layer 2 routing
by 6lowpan WG and layer 3 routing by RSN for mesh routing ?
Or, 6lowpan only work for RSN requirement ?

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:40:50 -0600

Daniel,
  I don't understand what you are saying.

> mesh-routing requirement might be Proposed Standard ?

What do you mean "this deliverable"?  What deliverable, "layer 2 mesh"?
Never were we chartered to define a Proposed Standard for layer 2
meshing".  If that is what you are saying, then I agree.  As originally
chartered we were not to write a proposed standard for layer 2 mesh.  I
stated in my message, as stated in the original charter, that the WG
might look at layer 2 routing (mesh under) alternatives, such as those
available from manet or 802.15.5.

> clarify your mis-interpretation from 6lowpan perspevtive.

I don't think that I mis-interpreted our original charter.  If you read
the WG documents they represent the concept of mesh under (layer 2
routing) and not routing over IP, but either way, it was very clear that
routing protocols were never intended to be a part of 6lowpan work.

> routing for IEEE 802.15.4. What alternative means

I know that 15.5 is working on Layer 2 meshing and the working group
should look at that as well as the other proposals that are consistent
with MANET.

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:49:41 -0600

Daniel,
  I still don't understand your question.  Do you not think that 6lowpan
should generate a PS document on L2 routing?  This has been in the
re-charter proposal for months.

I think that there may be networks that will not use L2 mesh and will
instead opt for L3 routing.  There might well be other networks that
will use L3 routing between L2 mesh networks.

	geoff

---

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:05:15 +0900

Geoff, 

Clarification to me. 

L2 mesh routing is made by 6lowpan taking
802.15.5 into consideration, and L3 mesh routing 
is perhaps made by another WG regardless of 
MANET WG deliverables such as DYMO/AODV
based on 6lowpan L3 mesh routing requirement.

-- Daniel Park

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:50 AM
> To: Daniel Park
> Cc: 'JP Vasseur'; 'Eunsook "Eunah" Kim'; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; 'Mark Townsley'
> Subject: RE: [6lowpan] Re: [RSN] The need for RSN
> 
> Daniel,

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:23:57 +0900

Hmm..
I'm a bit confused by your discussion.
>From Geoff's proposed recharter text, It seemed to be clear for me
that so-called "mesh-under routing" is 6lowpan's concern, while L3
routing is RSN's concern.

We need to find out if we CAN take exisiting solutions or if we NEED
to design a new one. Clearly for me, to find out this answer is
6lowpan's work.

-eunsook

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:17:36 -0400

> routing is RSN's concern.

Quite right.

> to design a new one. Clearly for me, to find out this answer is

As far as L3 routing is concerned, that task WOULD be the one of the  
POTENTIAL
new WG work.

If everybody agrees, it would be nice to go back to the technical work.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:51:23 +0900

> As far as L3 routing is concerned, that task WOULD be the one of the

Well, those kinds of work can be taken place at the relevant WG in
advance. For example, one of MANET WG sessions for this issue. Than,
IETF can move it on if we can see any EXPLICIT