Hi Richard: The trick is that the abstract data structure used for both is really similar. So it is highly tempting to describe them as a unique thing.
But the lifecycles of a cache and a registry have nothing in common. So I proposed to describe them as 2 different abstract entities and then explain their interaction should they both be present in a same router, like glean a cache entry from a registration or remove a cache entry upon optional NUD. Obviously, this is all abstract and my goal was to make it the operations clearer to the reader, not to constrain an implementation. More in the thread "proposed changes for ND". Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Richard Kelsey > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #67: Clarfication about the Neighbor Cache > > > 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 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
