The RFC says "integrate". So I understand the co-existence is recommended.
Service location and escape is focused in that RFC. I think delivering correct routing information for both internet connecting service, and walled garden service should be service location and escape mechanism. 2012/11/6 Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Arifumi Matsumoto <arif...@nttv6.net>wrote: > >> So, it does not recommend targeting this model of walled garden, >> >> but it looks recommending to standardize better co-existence method of >> >> open model and closed model. >> >> >> The model that the current dhcp route option draft describes seems me >> >> >> to fall into the matter of co-existence. >> >> > I think you're reading the text wrong. I don't see the word coexistence > anywhere in the text; the sentences you quote are all about "escaping" the > walled garden. In fact, the text says: These focused on service location > and escape from the "walled garden" - i.e., when you are in a walled > garden, figure out how to access the Internet instead. > > So it seems to me that the IAB is saying: > > 1. Don't target the walled garden model with protocols and architectural > decisions. > 2. Investigate standard ways that make it easier to escape from the walled > garden. >
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
