On 06/11/10 01:18 AM, Daniel Gavelle wrote:
Erik,
I agree that it is very important to keep the contexts in sync within a
network. I can also see that the L2 security can be used to separate
networks. Given these two conditions, when would there be a need for two
6LBRS in a network to have different addresses / version number spaces?
There is a difference between how I would build a product today using
the specification, and what we should support in the specification.
In a product, especially one that uses compression contexts, it makes
sense having the ABRO originate from a logical management entity to
ensure that all the 6LBRs send out the same information. But that
belongs in the vendor's product spec.
But for general applicability to route-over networks I think allowing
the 6LBRs to be autonomous is the right thing to do in the protocol
specification.
Thus the protocol specification isn't the same as the product specification.
Erik
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
