Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > But doing so, we bar Link Local traffic that could have happened > between nodes attached to different 6BBRs, e.g., in a Wi-Fi environment > where the 6BBRs can be collocated with APs and maybe operating as > Bridging Proxies. The proposal on the table is thus to proxy ND for > Link Local addresses in the case of a bridging proxy. The registration > and proxy operation would be the same as for a Global Address, but > there’s at least one caveat.
LL traffic is likely mDNS traffic and/or DNS-SD traffic.
I don't think it's useful to pretend it's a single subnet for the purposes
of making that work.
> * Make the scope of uniqueness for a Link Local Address the collection
> of links covered by a 6LBR (easy, no change in the spec)
seems simplest.
> What do people think?
I think it's too much thinking.
--
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
