Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > destination does not have the same reference as 6554 either. And the final > destination may have a different prefix than the core of the mesh, so using > addresses in the mesh like RFC 6554 and the new proposal do seems a better > idea. RFC 6554 is emulated in the current draft by representing the first > address in full, since that is the end of the current segment in the 6LoRH > format. But to compress it, we need a reference, thus the idea to use the > root as opposed to the final destination.
Simon, is it the fact that the root is present here that makes you feel that it's linked? -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
