On Sep 15, 2010, at 16:19, Fred Baker wrote:
> So that might use the mesh network header part of the 6lowpan header?
That would be a bit more radical, I think (and there is no place to put a rank
or instance ID in RFC 4944).
But the effect is similar, as the ROLL-specific information would prece
On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> So that might use the mesh network header part of the 6lowpan header?
We would need be using the compressed ID header
>
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>>> Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you
... and notifications via ANCP if that is running.
On 15/09/2010 2:37 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Indeed. And the router needs to send out an individual RA per interface.
So a router aggregating 20.000 customers will need to send out 20.000
RAs on a regular basis.
So the router is configured
> > Indeed. And the router needs to send out an individual RA per interface.
> > So a router aggregating 20.000 customers will need to send out 20.000
> > RAs on a regular basis.
>
> So the router is configured to know all the VLANs up front?
> Or does the router somehow get notified when the cust
On 09/14/10 11:21 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
in the 1:1 model the router will just advertise prefixes in RAs like on any
other link.
there is a one to one mapping between VLAN and customer. imagine a VLAN modeled
as an interface.
(not commenting on rs-mark, just the 1:1 VLAN model)
Indeed.
So that might use the mesh network header part of the 6lowpan header?
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
>> *before* the IP header?
>
> Yes. Ever since you proposed pretty much that at a previous IETF mee
Le 15 sept. 2010 à 04:35, Erik Nordmark a écrit :
> ... Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
> *before* the IP header?
> That avoids the overhead.
In www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12204, I essentially proposed
that (quote below).
> The downside
> Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need *before*
> the IP header?
Yes. Ever since you proposed pretty much that at a previous IETF meeting, I've
been thinking that architecturally it makes a lot of sense to think about ROLL
as a sub-IP protocol.
> The downside i
