Vidya, James, This gets me back to where Julien started this thread --- whether it makes sense to have a link local scope larger than the per node global prefix scope.
We have talked about whether that breaks the addressing model or not. (There may also be other technical issues to discuss. What happens to link local communications when you move, for instance?) But we should also talk about what the need is. One of the potential targets for the NETLMM work is specific cellular networks. If these networks employ p2p links, per node prefixes, and generally do not use shared media services, the question is if the WG wants to spend time designing something that goes beyond this. Keep it simple unless you have a reason not to. --Jari Narayanan, Vidya wrote: >I don't believe that cellular type systems use any shared media >functionality - they've already gone down to the path of p2p links for >various reasons. As I already said in a few of my earlier emails, the >prefix-per-MN model is inline with the cellular system operation. > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
