On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:36, Yasuyuki Tanaka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since datagram_tag is expected to be incremented (by one) as RFC4944 > specifies, holding the last datagram_tag per peer may be enough, although > this kind of thing could be "implementation-specific":
Right. We don’t want to blackhole datagrams after a reboot, and we want to allow the sending implementation to forget their neighbor state (which might include that counter, if it is not global) after a while. So I think some form of timeout may be needed. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
