Zach Shelby a écrit :
Alex,
On Nov 12, 2009, at 17:50 , Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Especially here, where 802.15.4 is cited upfront.
The 6lowpan-nd draft specifically says the link could be 802.15.4 or
any other suitable link.
I think you meant "similar" and not "suitable". Which makes a huge
difference.
Well - you're questioning here prior agreements. We did seem to be
in agreement when defining links in 6lowpan, as of April 2009, see
attached email.
We do appreciate all the help you gave to polish our model in April,
thanks for that!
And now you're about to remove the link definitions - thanks for
thanking me.
Now you do not like that anymore.
Why?
We have feedback from 6man and the ADs to look at using a similar
model as in autoconf, as the multi-hop subnet model we currently have
is still pretty controversial (although not-quite-as-bad as a
multi-link subnet...). Therefore we are looking at that. Let's see
what we can do with -08. Thanks for your feedback, let's return to
that again after the next revision.
Let me tell more then.
Additionally to AUTOCONF draft being against the 6lowpan-ND definition
of link, and of its first phrase in the Bootstrapping section (are you
going to remove that too?), AUTOCONF draft also requires the prefixes to
be /128 exclusively. Are you thus going to require /128 prefixes
exclusively too in the 6lowpan-ND document?
Are you going to modify the 6lowpan-ND bootstrapping because AUTOCONF
draft requires prefixes /128?
I would rather suggest the other way around - modify the AUTOCONF
addressing model such as to recommend the use of LLs (make them first
class citizens on a link) because 6lowpan-ND needs them while
bootstrapping, and allow for prefixes other than /128 also because
6lowpan-ND needs them in its bootstrapping section.
Alex
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
