Re: [6lowpan] Fundamental concerns about 6lowpan ND

[Geoff Mulligan <geoff at proto6.com>]

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:27 +0100, Colin O'Flynn wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> I agree with you there - these nodes would *not* be participating in real IP
> or mesh forwarding. 
> 
> However the ND process needs to function with these nodes. If we rely on
> 4861, these nodes which are going to miss packets must have a way to defend
> their address!

I'm not sure why they need to defend an address.

> 
>   -Colin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:jhui at archrock.com] 
> Sent: October 13, 2009 11:04 PM
> To: Colin O'Flynn
> Cc: 'Adam Dunkels'; '6lowpan'
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fundamental concerns about 6lowpan ND
> 
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Colin O'Flynn wrote:
> 
> > My concern for this sleeping method is very low power nodes. These  
> > would be
> > parasitic nodes for example that can only wake up every few seconds  
> > at most.
> >
> > These super-low power nodes could not listen continuously. Forcing  
> > them to
> > require waking up would basically eliminate them from the picture.
> 
> For these very special devices, I often prefer to view them as  
> wireless peripherals rather than IP devices.  They most likely won't  
> be able to participate in forwarding/routing functions.  Any bi- 
> directional communication tends not to be end-to-end since they want  
> to minimize round-trip time.
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hui
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan