At Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:46:45 +,
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
I understand, but perhaps it would be better, if, when another use case
comes
along, they write a document explaining why scope-3 is correct and
non-conflicting with the trickle mcast use case.
I don't
Having had a number of private exchanges with Ralph, I support the document
as worded.
It was not clear to me before that trickle-mcast will be *expected* to
define what it means for the scope to be defined automatically from the
network topology
I thought that further clarification of the use
Hi Michael,
actually, MANET protocols have been working for years to provide mesh-over
routing, without multi-link subnets.
To understand better the link properties you have to deal with, you could
take a look at this draft
From: Emmanuel Baccelli [emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:50 AM
As Ulrich mentioned, the conclusion of AUTOCONF was that IP links as
we know them do *not* make sense in a spontaneous wireless multi-hop
environment.
This conclusion was documented in RFC 5889, which
Hi Emmanuel,
I think if route over protocols are to adhere to RFC 5889, much more work
needs to go into making ULAs useful.
For our project we used:6LoWPAN (RFC 4944), 6LoWPAN-ND (RFC 6775), ROLL
RPL (RFC 650), mDNS (RFC 6762) with some extensions to use ULAs (among
others) and I can say
