Hi Carles, > >> It might be helpful to discuss in the document(s) how scenarios > >> without a secondary parent are supported. For example, a string > >> topology, such as: > >> > >> A ----- B ----- C ----- D > >> > > > > I would argue that in such topology there is no reliability ;-) > > > > Let me try to understand better your point. > > Do you mean a "logical" strip topology? Implying that the underlaying > > physical topology has redundant links? > > Well, my point was rather, going back to this sentence: > > "all nodes, except the root, have at least one secondary parent" > > - If "secondary parent" here means "secondary root", then everything is > clear to me. > > - If "secondary parent" here means that a node must have at least two direct > neighbors that can be used as parents (one being the primary one, and then > a back-up one), then I was wondering whether this was enforced somehow > and thus would exclude a network topology such as the one I referred to > above, such as: A ---- B ---- C ---- D.
Yes, this is the case, the requirement is to have two neighbors that can play the roles of parents. I agree that this is not sufficiently clear in the current document. We state in Section 3 that redundant link are needed but the text is rather generic. This is another work item for the next revision of the document. Thanks a lot for point out the lack of clarity. Ciao L. > > Thanks, > > Carles (as a WG participant) > > > > > Thanks > > > > Ciao > > > > L. > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
