Routing Architecture in Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs)
draft-routing-architecture-iot-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jonathan Hui , JP Vasseur | ||
| Last updated | 2011-03-28 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The IETF ROLL Working Group has specified a routing protocol designed for the Low power and Lossy Networks (LLN) also referred to as IP smart objects networks or the "Internet of things". Still, the debate of where routing functions should occur within the network stack tend to get revived on a regular basis. A mesh-under approach places routing functions in the link layer to emulate a single broadcast domain where all devices appear as immediate neighbors to the network layer. In contrast, a route-over approach places all routing functions at the network layer, following the IP architecture. For LLNs, a mesh-under approach may seem simple and attractive because it seeks to hide characteristics of multi-hop communication through the LLN from the network layer. However, resource constraints and dynamic link characteristics limit to what extent link-layer routing can hide those characteristics. This document presents architectural issues of using a mesh-under approach in LLNs and how a route-over approach does not suffer from these issues.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)