IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 15 September 2014 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 50A931A6F68 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 KmlUNeu619uC for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743761A8899 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:34:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8FGYG7i008191; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:34:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54890261.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.2.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43470F85; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:34:15 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <54170D2A.4020503@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:34:13 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 432491653.653274-51398a88af5d4252c15ed7a8075aa504
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0B825A6C-4613-41E1-81F2-E9487804BBE8@tzi.org>
References: <54170D2A.4020503@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/N76-AFmYYKLgHLr6WAYtI8sb3sQ
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz@tools.ietf.org, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:09:02 -0000

On 15 Sep 2014, at 18:00, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

>   - Can the use of RFC 6282 compression be replaced with the
> functionality specified in draft-ietf-6lo-ghc?

Interesting question, and rather relevant for maximizing GHC’s applicability.

(It certainly cannot be “replaced", as GHC requires RFC 6282 and plugs into it.)
I would expect the RFC 6282 usage in lowpanz can be enhanced with GHC if the ND RS message of a host includes the right 6CIO option.
With GHC, it is optional for the other node to react to that option, so nodes would need to keep state which of their neighbors are GHC capable and which are not.

A radical proposal would be to *require* GHC the same way that RFC 6282 is required, removing the need for that state, but adding a requirement to at least decompress GHC for every node using that adaptation layer.
We cannot make that decision for 802.15.4 6LoWPAN retroactively, but we can make it for any new 6Lo adaptation layer.
The merits of that decision may differ between different PHY/MACs.
I have no opinion yet whether this is something that should be done for lowpanz or not.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email