Hello Paul:
Great catch, and I agree.
Ignoring is fine for RPL but not for 6LoWPAN. Let me propose the following
update:
+---+--+
| P-Field Value | Registered Address Type |
+---+--
Hi Pascal,
I have a small clarification question on this part:
>
>* When the value of 3 is received in an RTO (see Section 6.5), this
> value MUST be ignored by the receiver, meaning, treated as a value
> of 0, but the message is processed normally.
>
What do you mean exactly b
Many thanks Dirk!
I'll be applying all this in version 19 to be published very soon.
all the best
Pascal
Le mar. 30 avr. 2024 à 00:09, Dirk Hugo a écrit :
> sorry for not having suceeded in using github the correct way ;-( I have
> attached the diff file here for convenience ;-/
> Regards
> D
Hello Luigi:
We define the same P-field in EARO and RTO. RTO is not the registration, it
is the RPL target.
In RTO, the prefix length was always there so there's really no difference
in operation for 0 and 3. A legacy router uses 0 for a prefix as well as
for an address, because it treats an addre
Thanks Pascal,
I'll check it once the new version is published and will come back to you!
Best regards
Dirk
On Tue, May 14, 2024, 5:37 PM Pascal Thubert
wrote:
> Many thanks Dirk!
>
> I'll be applying all this in version 19 to be published very soon.
>
> all the best
>
> Pascal
>
> Le mar. 30 a
Hi Pascal,
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense. Thanks.
As a nit, I would add the reference to the relevant RFC right after “processed
normally”.
Thanks again
Ciao
L.
From: Pascal Thubert
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2024 18:29
To: Luigi Iannone
Cc: Paul Wouters ; The IESG ;
draft-ietf-6lo-mult
