> From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:16:12 -0000
>
> #67: Clarfication about the Neighbor Cache
> --------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
> Reporter: z...@… | Owner:
> Type: enhancement | Status: new
> Priority: trivial | Milestone:
> Component: nd | Version:
> Severity: - | Keywords:
> --------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
> Pascal commented on the list that the Neighbor Cache is used differently
> than in RFC4861 thus it should have a different name etc. The use of
> Neighbor Cache in nd-09 is however 80-90% common to the use in RFC4861 so
> the Neighbor Cache name should be kept and as a single cache. The
> maintenance of entries in the nd-09 Neighbor Cache is based on address
> registration with the lifetime set buy the host, thus the following text
> will be added to clarify the difference in the terminology under
> registration and in Section 5.5:
>
> "Thus for 6LoWPAN the Neighbor Cache doesn't behave like a cache. Instead
> it behaves as a registry of all the host addresses that are attached to
> the Router."
I'm sorry, but I don't find the clarification very clear.
What is the significance here of the Neighbor Cache being a
registry and not a cache? Is it that the entries should
(SHOULD? MUST?) not be removed before they expire?
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
