Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
> There is a need for a protocol between the 6LBRs/NEAR routers to
> exchange their state. This could be achieved by an extension on ND for
> proxy operations as described in dratf-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router,
> a similar extension to a routing protocol running on the backbone or a
> richer extension to IPv6 NDP allowing some degree of pub/sub as well.Are the wired part of the 6LBRs always located on the same link? I'm asking because it seems like this is an important assumption. I read 6lowpan-backbone-router-03. Please number the figure in section 3. I'll call it "Figure Plan Network" I don't like the term backbone, and backbone router. What I see are three areas of a DAG connected by a heterogeneous layer-2. The "BBR" are just RPL routers. I don't know why a new protocol is necessary for the mesh-over case. Perhaps the MESH-under case has some requirements, but I'd rather just pretend that it's four links (an ethernet link, and three mesh-under links) connected together to form a single mesh-over network. It seems to me that you are inventing a protocol to solve the MESH-under problem, but that we already have such a protocol. -- Michael Richardson -at the cottage-
pgpj6_m6X5BgY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
