OK Then, I'll incorporate and refresh in both draft...

Take care,

Pascal
-----Original Message-----
From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: vendredi 23 février 2018 00:00
To: 6lo@ietf.org; Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <r...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [Roll] A bit for ROLL


Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
    > 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.

Exactly.

    > 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?




    > -----Original Message-----
    > 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>
    > Cc: 6lo@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
    >> 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 <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= 
IPv6 IoT consulting =-



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 
IoT consulting =-



_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Reply via email to