Re: [6lowpan] Fundamental concerns about 6lowpan ND
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [6lowpan] Fundamental concerns about 6lowpan ND



On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:48, Colin O'Flynn wrote:

So those arguing for 4861, is doing a proxy NS answer acceptable?

Please see (and contribute to) the other thread about "assumption 1".
(From my point of view, it's a waste of energy, but I wasn't asked above :-)

Gruesse, Carsten


Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.