Hi,
We'd like to briefly present a new proposal:
> Draft name and a short description:
draft-jiang-asymmetric-ipv6
Asymmetric IPv6 for IoT Networks describes a new approach to IPv6 header
compression for scenarios where minimizing packet size is crucial but routing
performance must be ma
On 03-Jul-19 20:13, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> I'm baffled that the reactive ND is still the official technique for IPv6
> lookup at 6MAN.
How can it be otherwise when a node can give itself a new address at any time
without notice?
I'm not arguing with you about RFC 6775/8505 net
ting a generalisation of RFC8505 to non-6lo LANs, that's
certainly a discussion we could have, IMHO.
Regards
Brian
>
> Take care,
>
> Pascal
>
>> Le 3 juil. 2019 à 22:39, Brian E Carpenter a
>> écrit :
>>
>> On 03-Jul-19 20:13, Pascal Thubert
Hi,
On Wednesday July 24 morning, from 08:30 to 09:45, in room Notre Dame,
we'll introduce and discuss two new drafts:
Asymmetric IPv6, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-asymmetric-ipv6
A new approach to IPv6 header compression for scenarios where minimum packet
size and minimum routing c
cuss that.
Thanks
Brian
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pascal
>
>> Le 21 juil. 2019 à 16:44, Brian E Carpenter a
>> écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wednesday July 24 morning, from 08:30 to 09:45, in room Notre Dame,
>> we'll introduce and
that address. Not a show-stopper for
PASA, but something an adopter needs to be made aware of! (Even though
it should be obvious already for some readers.)
[LI] Thanks a lot for these suggestions. We can clarify and add these points in
a new revision of the document.
Ciao
L.
Regar
Hi,
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Firstly, *please* do not use the word "semantic". This is not semantic
addressing in any way. It's a topological addressing scheme, and that's a good idea.
(Semantic addressing is a bad idea that wastes address bits. From the title, I was
expecting to hat
