I understand that you suggest to reverse the bit from my draft, so that it is
set by a leaf that does not support its own routing.
I agree that this minimizes the changes to the existing. But also this means
that I should change RFC6775-update to specify that.
I'm happy with that approach and will do it if the WG does not disagree. What
do others think?
From: Roll [mailto:roll-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: jeudi 22 février 2018 17:57
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <r...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] A bit for ROLL
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> 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
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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6
IoT consulting =-
6lo mailing list