Subject: [6lowpan] RE: [Manemo] MANEMO is not just about Nested Nemo

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:38:00 +0200

Hi Alex:

I'm adding RSN and 6LoWPAN.

Seems we agree here :)

>> At the moment, RSN takes its requirements from 6LoWPAN, but I'd
>> suggest considering whether MANEMO can influence RSN and offload some
>> of its routing part there.
>
>I agree that MANEMO shouldn't do much routing, like routing for sensors
>or so.  I agree if sensors we need then talking to RSN or 6LowPAN.

[Pascal] RSN (or rather RL2N now) is not really specific to sensors but
to highly constrained devices (battery, CPU, memory, bandwidth, wake
time etc...). We would see MANEMO at the same level as 6LoWPAN, pushing
some requirements into RSN.

>
>> It just seems better to do routing work in the routing area, and that
>> would enable to focus MANEMO on more specific problems, like routing
>> policies between topologies, nested NEMO RO solution, CIA properties
>> definition and enforcement, using the fringe structure for
>> multicasting, etc...
>
>I mainly agree.  I think we want to stay in the Internet area and do as
>much routing as Internet area has traditionally done, but no more.

[Pascal] Yes. We have enough trouble focusing/chartering MANEMO and we
should avoid an inter area conflict on what belongs where. The routing
expertise is supposed to come from routing area.

>> If we specify properly the needs for building the logical structure
>> to reach the infrastructure, then we could see how RSN and MANET
>> solutions as defined within the routing area perform best for our
>> routing needs. We could also develop tree discovery within RSN, since
>> very similar technology already happens at L2 within sensor networks.
>
>So do we see tree discovery out of MANEMO and into RSN rather?

[Pascal] Yes. I think that the core engine should be in RSN, and then we
can add options and best practices so that the generic TD applies well
to forming a nested-NEMO for instance. I see 6LoWPAN adapting TD as well
so that TD benefits from the ND and compression optimizations that they
do there. Would you agree with that approach ? 

Pascal_____________________________________________________________

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