Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <> 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 <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

6lo mailing list

Reply via email to