Yasuyuki Tanaka <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sending an explicit CLEAR will speed things up, and avoid for the >> previous preferred parent to waste energy listening to those. A CLEAR >> wouldn't hurt, right?
> This is right. But, I don't think it's a SF0 job. The thing is that SF0
> knows nothing about RPL.
> If SF0 provided an API to send CLEAR to a particular neighbor, RPL
> could trigger the CLEAR request to a previous preferred parent on its
> parent switch, I guess.
Your SF0 layer could provide whatever internal API it wants to your RPL
implementation. This is hardly a standardization issue or problem; this is a
quality of implementation issue.
The observation of *when* RPL should clear traffic reservation may have some
impact on the SF0 protocol, but I'd think it would be just some
implementation advice.
--
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
