On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Daniel Gavelle wrote: > In section 8.2.6 of 6LowPAN-ND-10, it is the responsibility of the 6LR to > retry if forwarding a special NS message to the 6LBR does not result in a > corresponding NA. > > I think it would be more efficient if the host were responsible for the > retry. The host will need to retry the special NS message anyway, to cover > the case where the message is lost between the host and the 6LR or the > forwarded NA is lost in the other direction. > > If the 6LR didn't need to retry on behalf of the host, it wouldn't need a > table of pending nodes. It could implement NS/NA forwarding in a stateless > manner, much like a REST HTTP implementation. This would not require any > other change to the specification because the state information (the SLLAO of > the host) is already carried in the messages.
WFM. What do others think? Zach -- 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
