Re: [6lowpan] Mesh-header, do we need it anymore?

["Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <eunah.ietf at gmail.com>]

Dear all,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Geoff Mulligan <ietf08 at mulligan.org> wrote:
> I don't think that we should or need to remove the mesh header.  I think
> that there is a use for it (Sun is using it with sunspots).
>

I don't know industries or other commercial fields, but
Korea has been building up some 6LoWPAN testbeds, and as I know the
biggest testbed in Jeju island use a comercial product which use the
mesh header.

> It would seem that you could use some layer 2 packet to determine
> forwarding information and then use the mesh header to create a single
> layer 2.5 link for all the nodes on the pan - I think that this is what
> sun does.
>
> I'm experimenting with passing the routing information inside the ip
> packet and then still using the mesh header to create single link layer
> in the pan (I guess this is a hybrid of route over and mesh under -
> Route Over Mesh).

This hybrid way is what exactly some Korean 6LoWPAN testbeds are using.

>
> I do not want to see the mesh header deprecated.
>
>        geoff
>

In my opinion, it's a bit early to say deprecation of mesh header as
it's in use.

-eunah
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
6lowpan at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan