I'm not so wrapped around the word standard ND vs 4861 ND or anything
else though I think your examples are off base. I would hope that there
is no desire to get rid of 4861 and I never thought there was.
There is obviously no consensus here that 4861 does or does not work in
lowpans.
It does seem clear that there have been concerns expressed on the list
that this new ND may not be the "right" direction and may be unnecessary
for all lowpans, may create complexity where it is not needed, and may
break or be incompatible with other forms of address assignment for
lowpans.
I am re-reading draft 7 and will send my comments.
geoff
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 21:54 +0900, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 21:23, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
>
> > It was very clear in the previous
> > version what standard ND meant.
>
> Does RFC 2460 refer to RFC 791 as "Standard IP"?
> Does IMAP refer to POP3 as "Standard mail access protocol"?
> Does SIP refer to H.323 as "Standard IP telephony signaling"?
>
> When we define an alternative to something, we don't necessarily call
> the existing way "standard".
>
> I think the desire to call 4861 "standard ND" is an expression of a
> mindset that somehow glorifies that standard.
> That's why I asked to get rid of that term in ND-07.
>
> There is, of course, no desire to get rid of 4861 for the domains
> where it works (links where you can cheaply reach all other nodes in
> one message, i.e., broadcast and point-to-point links).
> But there is absolutely no gain in desperately trying to use its
> mechanisms where they do not work.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
