> Op 16 nov. 2014, om 05:43 heeft Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > het volgende geschreven: > > > Mark Townsley <[email protected]> wrote: >> routing protocol. A technical solution was proposed and discussed >> ("proposal #1"), using the attached slides. "Proposal #2" in the >> attached slide deck explored one way to support "HNCP Fallback" plus a >> to-be-named "Routing Protocol" at the same time in a Homenet. Consensus > > I think that the two things are not mutually exclusive, or did I > mis-understand?
Having #2 for HNCP' SRI would be mandatory, for stability during transition periods. Teco > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
