{did not make it in person, and had a conflict and I haven't watched the
session on youtube yet}
Kyle Larose <[email protected]> wrote:
> - Question was raised about whether we should restrict the number of v6
> addresses (one address, one prefix, etc).
Was there any consensus?
I don't see a way to restrict the number of v6 addresses per UE except via stateful
DHCPv6, and few use that.
> - I recall something about restricting the UE, API server and ED to be
> on the same link (or provisioning domain?) from the UE's perspective to
> simplify the passive identification. Didn't see it in the notes,
> though, so I may be imagining it.
The term provisioning domain is probably more precise.
> - There seemed to be general support for a simple form of the ICMP
> option (i.e. keep it a simple notification of a problem, rather than
> communicating further state within it). We need to work on what exactly
> this entails, and what we lose by taking out the more advanced
> capabilities (i.e. maybe first round has the simple methods, but we can
> add more extensions as the base technology is adopted).
+1
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature