IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Request for Ethertype for 6lowpan-encoded IPv6

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 23 February 2016 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7751B3530 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:16:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yAKhDjFyEpiz for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:16:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 113521B3480 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BDB2002A; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:17:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6674963750; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:16:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, "Paul Duffy (paduffy)" <paduffy@cisco.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6c2b86b65d7b4bfd99808757e84d4a88@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <21C5307E-A8C1-4BCB-BE06-D249928D451E@cisco.com> <6c2b86b65d7b4bfd99808757e84d4a88@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:16:27 -0500
Message-ID: <8671.1456244187@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/Mf49-tqCLvnWtpNLE652oF2oBEc>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Request for Ethertype for 6lowpan-encoded IPv6
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:16:31 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > 2) The group flirted with Jonathan's idea of having more than one
    > ethertype. For instance, we could have an ethertype that is more
    > specific than "anything 6loENC can encode with paging" to more specific
    > stuff that could be even better compressed. An example that was
    > discussed was a route-over ethertype and a mesh-under ethertype so for
    > instance page 1 does not have to be signaled in a route-over ethertype.
    > Could that be envisioned?

I would also like to have this resolved.
The document very explicitely says: RFC 4944, RFC 6282, but it's unclear
if it would include subsequent amendments.

I also agree with Pascal that it would be better to have two ethertypes:
mesh-under and route-over.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email