Subject: [6lowpan] ND for 6lowpan is too long ?

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:50:28 +0900

for the time saving...

46 pages for ND for 6lowpan is still shorter than ND for IPv6 (97 pages).
Personally, I don't see any problem in this roop...:-)

-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Standard Architect, http://blog.naver.com/natpt
DMC Business, Samsung Electronics, KOREA

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:27:23 +0100

Daniel, I agree with your oppinion, and with any other oppinion saying
46 pages wouldn't be that long actually.

During the discussion, I wanted to raise the issue that a doc which 
would run IPv6 ND over a 6lowpan link which were a single subnet and 
multicast-friendly - wouldn't have that many things to say... which 
would be very fine... that's also why I also suggested a skinnier part 
of the document to be obtained by extracting HC from it, and route-over, 
and the IID-to-address-derivation-avoiding-DAD and the single address 
assigned by an RA, and the BR-being-not-a-router.

Alex

Daniel Park a écrit :
> for the time saving...
> 
> 
> 46 pages for ND for 6lowpan is still shorter than ND for IPv6 (97 
> pages). Personally, I don't see any problem in this roop...:-)
> 
> 
> -- Soohong Daniel Park Standard Architect,
> http://blog.naver.com/natpt DMC Business, Samsung Electronics, KOREA
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan