Hello, > The backbone is supposed to be an Ethernet or a similar high-capacity > link, so it should have little problem with that load.
Agreed. > the idea was to enable other nodes to live on the backbone link and ? > communicate with the 6lowpan nodes without requiring any 6lowpan-specific > code. Those other nodes will speak 4861 only. Is the NA/NS solely to exchange information about the whiteboard between the ERs? If so, they could perform a proxy-ND to respond to NS directed at nodes on the 6LoWPAN. Then some other method to keep whiteboards up to date could be used. I'm not advocating such a thing, just saying if the clutter of 4861 traffic on the Ethernet side of the ER was an issue I would think there would be other solutions! Regards, -Colin -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November 17, 2009 4:49 PM To: Alexandru Petrescu Cc: Colin O'Flynn; 'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)'; 'Ralph Droms (rdroms)'; '6lowpan' Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Thoughts on draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07 On Nov 17, 2009, at 16:08, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Is it efficient for the Edge Router to send a myriad of Neighbor > Advertisement messages (which are addressed to a link-layer multicast > address, and a L3 multicast address) on the backbone? Well, we try to be fully 4861-compliant on the backbone. The backbone is supposed to be an Ethernet or a similar high-capacity link, so it should have little problem with that load. > Why cluttering the backbone? Because that's what 4861 does to you? :-) Of course, the ERs could speak a different protocol between themselves, but the idea was to enable other nodes to live on the backbone link and communicate with the 6lowpan nodes without requiring any 6lowpan-specific code. Those other nodes will speak 4861 only. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
