Re: [IPv6] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration-11
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf-SWp7JaYWvAQV+D8aMU/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.6lo,gmane.ietf.ipv6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1417.1668702765@localhost> |
Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]> wrote: > Makes sense to me. What about: I'm mostly happy with this, but maybe: > In the case of LLNs, RPL [RFC6550] is the routing protocol of choice > and [RFC9010] specifies how the unicast address advertised with Maybe this could mention other choices somewhere? What about in the case of non-LLNs? Would it work with OSPFv3? Would it work for /128 prefixes on un-bridged wifi? Could PASA make use of this? (I'm genuinely unclear) -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF-SWp7JaYWvAQV+D8aMU/[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 515 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFKBAEBCgA0FiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmN2Yi0WHG1jcitpZXRm QHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYQAKCRCAi3D73dDdZWfCCACrHKRgQNBTZ+ALUsU6t9tLmP4T FvOxWRojW7VvEMv1hROys5mU9ls6BP0BfH/foyc/mcwlHzw6/fm481Z79poM3bMc irGbN+asPg3iO9gUnS+suUJvdua1DZCmThVYCIpRrxLpqm0yMwexV1tCYPzgCrXQ mweVrcVHBbW3XXR2jXwpmFUKmGR8ozNtad32nPb5wKKC7n2iQMQtNJ55Eyph1Myk Dkl5y/biUHNy6hsKU4P2Yf1gJCwQAXyJ29DCJtFtMDCE4dBd5ttM7UcSfXsMy2gR S7jN4qmHsH5BvqNPew4aWXE/QjTUsUVYxDkaBnMKq3e/46bPIj9TZAek6csh =1YGc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----