Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > So I guess the value of the MOP 7 behavior is... to recover the bit of the
    > flags? Fine, I suppose, but this would appear to have two costs:
    > 1) If A is still out there when E deploys, this bit would have been useful,
    > but isn't.

The whole point is that A and E can't co-exist, BY CONSTRUCTION.
The same way that IPv6 nodes can't talk to IPv4 directly.
And we're okay with that, because it's the A/B -> C transition that worries us.

    > Do I have this right?

I think so.

Finally, at present, there aren't many networks where there is much in the
way of multi-vendor nodes present.  That's sad.  But, the owners of the
networks want/need (often by NAFTA Article 10/etc. other treaty) to be able
to source from other vendors.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [