Thanks for all the enlightment about ROLL.
My personal conclusion is that the ROLL considerations
are too complex and too subtle to be compatible with using
a general-purpose IPv6 header field (i.e. the flow label)
for ROLL purposes. They seem to be an extreme case of the
challenges of defining a local-use regime for the flow label,
which have already been a stumbling block for the various
versions of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update.
So IMHO, ROLL/RPL was quite wise to drop the IPv6 header flow label
proposal.
Brian
On 2010-08-11 08:53, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm not talking of "host" as in originates or terminates traffic, but
>> "host" in the sense of "does not participate in routing".
>> It appears there is no such thing inside a RPL world then.
>
> A RPL or Manet world doesn't have the 1970's-mentality limitation that hosts
> have to be stupid. Of all networking architectures, the Internet is the only
> one with that delusion.
>
> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
