Carsten Bormann a écrit :
[...]
So the (in hindsight very obvious) way forward is:
-- split off the host-router interface part of 6LoWPAN-ND into one
document of its own. This document will contain the router
discovery and node registration protocol components of
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07.txt (NR/NC with code != 1, the RA
parameters/options). Based on the input from 6man, the ADs and the
IAB, this will also now make use of the terminology in
draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt that is quickly
becoming the new consensus for this kind of network.
Er?
I can see here two disagreements:
(1) AUTOCONF document draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt is not
such a big consensus you make it sound like. To me there seem to
be disagreements on at least one issue: link-local addresses. Which
brings point 2 below.
(2) Link-local addresses: the AUTOCONF is vaguely but surely
recommending against them:
Note that while an IPv6 link-local address is assigned to each
interface as per [RFC4291], in general link-local addresses are of
limited utility on links with undetermined connectivity, as
connnectivity to neighbors may be constantly changing.
whereas the 6LoWPAN ND document says they're supported:
Link-local
Standard IPv6 link-local scope as defined in [RFC4291] and
[RFC4861] is supported by the 6LoWPAN link and subnet model.
I agree with this latter part.
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
