Julien Abeille (jabeille) a écrit :
Hi all,
I did not dig in the details, but the 16ng group had some discussions
about the link definition for IPv6 over 802.16, which has
similarities with our case (it is wireless):
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5154.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5121.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4968.txt
They ended up with a definition which escapes the transitivity
discussion: RFC 5154: Link Topological area bounded by routers, which
decrement the IPv4 TTL or IPv6 Hop Limit when forwarding the packet
as specified from [RFC4903].
This, and the link definition in the IPv6 RFCs, contradict the notion
that a link is non-transitive, and that a router makes it transitive by
forwarding packets within it.
If a LoWPAN one-interface router decrements the Hop Limit of a forwarded
packet then this is _two_ links. And a router with a single physical
interface can hardly be connected to two links simultaneously.
Maybe a LoWPAN link is not a link...
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
