Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > With RPL, and probably any other route-over protocol, there is a need > to signal either way, i.e. the node handles its routing (like a > classical RPL node) or the node expects that the 6LR will manage the > routing on its behalf (like a RPL leaf). The bit is IGP-agnostic, and > it applies to any protocol.
> draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves suggests a bit that indicates that
> the 6LR that is capable to handle its routing should signal it, so the
> unaware leaf does not need to set it.
This *is* a new change to existing devices.
> Q: Should the bit be defined in rfc6775-update as opposed to a ROLL
> since it is IGP agnostic?
> Side question: Is it the right approach or should the leaf set the bit
> instead?
I think it depends upon whether the leaf is a legacy device.
We can't just plug a Windows7 PC into an arbitrary 802.15.4 network, because
there generally aren't drivers. So there really isn't a legacy question.
We almost always are creating new code, in which case we can create code
which sets a bit which says, "Please manage my routing for me".
This is not a burden, because such leaf devices do not really exist yet.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
