Sounds like HNCPs fallback-routing to me. But I am interested in reading the minutes to see the details of that proposal.
Am 15. November 2014 21:44:47 MEZ, schrieb "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]>: >While we didn¹t spend a lot of time on it in Thursday¹s meeting, it was >proposed that the IoT device domain would never be used for transit so >it >only needed to get a default (or other aggregate) and inject a prefix >and >the HNCP could be made to satisfy this requirement. > >On 11/15/14, 10:36 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" ><[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Since the assumption is that the device runs HNCP anyway, the intent >is >>>to >>> use that for the stub-only routing. >> >>I'm probably just being slow, but I have trouble understanding how >that's >>supposed to work. >> >>At some point, the stub network needs to be redistributed into the >routing >>protocol. Who performs that redistribution? The stub router? One of >the >>neighbours of the stub router? All of its neighbours? >> >>-- Juliusz >> > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
