Zach Shelby a écrit :
[...]
I hear you saying the link-local scope may not cover the entire
link, only the part of it which is fully transitive and reflexive. It
leads me more and more to think a non-transitive link is actually two
links. Each link with its own link-local scope, each fully transitive
and symmetric. (If so, the problem left is to fit a router with a
single interface connecting to two links simultaneously (the parts of
a non-transitive link).)
You can't split this non-transitive link into a clean set of transitive
ones just like that. It doesn't work, especially from the
single-interface router point of view.
>
A - B - C
A can reach B, B can reach C, but A can't reach C.
B is a LoWPAN Router. From its perspective, its link-local scope
includes both A and C. It does not have two links by any means. It is
forwarding between two nodes on the same link (and in the same
link-local scope) who don't have transitivity between each other (A and C).
B in LL scopes of both A and C, B has a single interface... could it be
that B forwards a packet from A to C without A hearing it too?
Node A receiving its own packet could be easily qualified as noise.
Otherwise nodes should have a means to know on _which_ link-local scopes
are they, and send data on only one scope. But I think there's only one
link-local address per interface, and only a scope_id field in the
respective C struct.
Sorry for insisting on this, it is IMHO. I will agree with the WG further.
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
