Right - the net is that the constrained devices need not run the chosen routing protocol so we don’t need to be counting bits for this exercise.
On 11/15/14, 4:34 PM, "Pierre Pfister" <pierre.pfis...@darou.fr> wrote: >Hello Juliusz, > >Please have a look at proposal #1 in the pdf Mark joined to this thread’s >first mail. > >The idea is to use the existing Assigned Prefix TLV so that >non-<insert-favorite-RP-here>-routers can ask neighboring ><insert-favorite-RP-here>-routers to inject 1-hop-away routes into the RP. >The main difference with Fallback Routing based solution is that you >don’t require all routers to implement fallback routing. > >Cheers, > >- Pierre > > >Le 15 nov. 2014 à 11:15, Juliusz Chroboczek ><j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> a écrit : > >>> While we didn¹t spend a lot of time on it in Thursday¹s meeting, it was >>> proposed that the IoT device domain would never be used for transit so >>>it >>> only needed to get a default (or other aggregate) and inject a prefix >>>and >>> the HNCP could be made to satisfy this requirement. >> >> Could you please clarify what you mean by "inject" a prefix in this >> context? Stub router sends HNCP message to non-stub router asking it to >> perform redistribution? When does the non-stub router cease >>redistributing? >> >> -- Juliusz >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
