Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > On Loopback, I understand your frustration with the lack of a good > definition. Given that IPv6 addressing architecture constraints, you need > some sort of interface. In practice, the way loopbacks are used seems to > match the need. So I do not object to the usage. just to the definition. > It would also be acceptable to simply craft a different term and clearly > define it if the usage is sufficiently different from existing > practice.
Reading this thread, I was hoping you might be able to help us with a better
definition then :-)
We are doing exactly what OSPF and BGP does operationally on every platform
that I have every worked on. We are just doing it with RPL.
To me, it's *SO* obvious that it goes without saying, so now we are asked to
say it, and we get into trouble because nobody before us bothered to say it.
> On the final minor comment, it was specifically about the section on L2
> devices. Maybe something special is needed for the special case of a
shared
> network that is also a border network. But that seems very rare. And
getting
> the L2 switch to do the right packet forwarding for the hybrid case seems
an
> invitation to trouble.
I'm not happy about any of the L2 text; I would have left it out completely.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
