Mark,I agree with what you say but that still means RPL could be on the table. It seems quite feasible to me that we could have a multi-link route-over subnet using a routing protocol such as RPL with downstream border routers as well. This may seem unlikely with an LLN but is more feasible with broader band link layer technologies. Granted, if multi-link route-over subnets are considered to exist only as "leaf subnets" (i.e. without downstream border routers) then life does get somewhat easier. The question is whether that is acceptable or not for the general picture.
Robert On 12/11/2012 11:47 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
On Nov 10, 2012, at 2:21 AM, Robert Cragie wrote:On 09/11/2012 7:56 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:<RCC>Why not? Again, the sort of networks which would use RPL (LLNs) are referred to in the charter.</RCC>(and that's why RPL isn't on the table at homenet)In the charter, LLNs are referred to as an example of a link-layer which might exist in the home and would accordingly require its own routed subnet, not that the entire home itself will be an LLN.- Mark_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org <mailto:homenet@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
