On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:01 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 14:47, Julien Abeille (jabeille) wrote:
>
> > the issues arised on lowpan networks as far as ND is concerned are
> > not huge
>
>
> [WG member hat]
>
> Julien,
>
> I'd like to know more about that.
>
> As far as I can see, certain parts of 4861-ND just DO NOT WORK on non-
> transitive networks.
> It's really as simple as that.
But with a mesh under or a simple star can't then 4861-ND work. There
are plenty of scenarios where this is applicable.
geoff
>
> So you either make 6LoWPANs transitive at huge cost, or you need
> something like 6LoWPAN-ND for those parts.
> (Or, you simply ignore that they don't work, which you mostly can for
> DAD; we didn't want to do that.)
>
> Please reread section 1, paragraph 2 of 4861 for its area of
> applicability.
>
> Gruesse, Carsten
>
> PS.: re the charter:
> Getting rid of 4861's address resolution by multicast is indeed just
> an optimization.
> I happen to believe it is a good one. We can (and should!) debate that.
> I would have argued to simply get rid of DAD as well, but there is the
> issue of counterfeiting.
> So we made a limited extension to make DAD work, which it doesn't for
> 4861-ND on non-transitive.
> etc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
