Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
