Hi Pascal, Thanks for your answer.
> - Section 7.3: I feel like you are underestimating the role that the > routing protocol might play. If you take the example of what RPL is > defining, an > IPv6 host could very well be a RPL leaf node, in which case it might > discover its default router by listening to DIO messages, and send DAO > to 'register'. In addition, if the 6LR are RPL routers that use DHCPv6 > or another scheme for address allocation, RS/RA might be completely disabled. [Pascal] The classical way is that the routing protocol operates between routers. ND provides the abstraction for a host to locate and interact with its router. This is why in the current WG doc, the registration also belongs to ND. [Mathilde] What you are saying makes sense. Although in 4861 the host is not really registering with the router it is just discovering it. Hence, it is a host -> router relationship but the opposite is not quite true, the router does not use ND to route to the host (at least for off-link prefixes)... [Pascal] Based on the registration, it is up to the router to redistribute the information in the route-over protocol, whether that is RPL or something else. If we lose the ND registration capability, we end up forcing every host attached to a RPL network to support RPL. Don't you feel that's wrong? [Mathilde] At this stage I don't know if this is right or wrong, but I would like to understand what RPL is assuming? It's not so clear in the draft... Maybe it relates to the questions that were asked on the role of leaf nodes during the WG meeting yesterday. Best, Mathilde
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
