Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Loopback, I understand your frustration with the lack of a good
> definition. Given that IPv6 addressing architecture constraints, you need
> some sort of interface. In practice, the way loopbacks are used seems to
> match the need. So I do not object to the usage. just to the definition.
> It would also be acceptable to simply craft a different term and clearly
> define it if the usage is sufficiently different from existing
> practice.
Reading this thread, I was hoping you might be able to help us with a better
definition then :-)
We are doing exactly what OSPF and BGP does operationally on every platform
that I have every worked on. We are just doing it with RPL.
To me, it's *SO* obvious that it goes without saying, so now we are asked to
say it, and we get into trouble because nobody before us bothered to say it.
> On the final minor comment, it was specifically about the section on L2
> devices. Maybe something special is needed for the special case of a shared
> network that is also a border network. But that seems very rare. And getting
> the L2 switch to do the right packet forwarding for the hybrid case seems an
> invitation to trouble.
I'm not happy about any of the L2 text; I would have left it out completely.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
