On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote: > On 06/10/10 11:09 AM, Geoff Mulligan wrote: >> I still do not agree that we need this error code in ND. It is an error >> on the 6LBR and the 6LBR should communicate the error to the operator >> and since it is "well connected" it has a much better chance to getting >> the message to someone that can do something. > > I agree it would be much easier for the operator to get the error out of a > log or SNMP trap from the 6LBR, then it would be to get the error from the > hosts. > >> Lets not add complexity to this draft. > > Works for me.
+1 -- Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" Mobile: +358 40 7796297 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
