Proxy-ND doesn't seem hard... much less evil than NAT, after all. Andrew
On 9/11/2012, at 2:56 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> writes: > Andrew> This whole thread is making me think that specifying that we > Andrew> use either babel (with attention to getting it documented > Andrew> properly) or one of the OSPFv4 MANET extensions, in the case > Andrew> where we have only a /64 and perhaps any time we find we > Andrew> have an 802.11s, ad-hoc or NBMA interface in play. That way > Andrew> we introduce /128 routes, and everything continues to work. > > so, great maybe, except that now either: > 1) hosts have to participate in the routing protocol. (so impact on > hosts) > > 2) we have to deploy proxy-ND. > > (and that's why RPL isn't on the table at homenet) > > -- > Michael Richardson > -on the road- > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
