IETF Logo Mail Archive

[6lo] 6lo and SCHC

Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr> Wed, 29 July 2020 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069B63A0B72 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=imt-atlantique.fr
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 YrGyXtFtd2Ne for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zproxy120.enst.fr (zproxy120.enst.fr [137.194.2.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19AA3A0B68 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zproxy120.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AEF80E61 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:13:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zproxy120.enst.fr ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zproxy120.enst.fr [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id QFB1IeFNi9pr for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:13:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zproxy120.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD14580F49 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:13:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zproxy120.enst.fr CD14580F49
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imt-atlantique.fr; s=50EA75E8-DE22-11E6-A6DE-0662BA474D24; t=1596032009; bh=yCXaUfJB2nFGYeiTByY8maEa1hHI7eXepsovJjmTZps=; h=MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:To; b=REotfVdy3+n8aYpxnA6yk1J7sF5wnn3mXy0xYe/WYfiQosAfOhMoCA6dPwWfKh7DD v/MG6rWC8qWgT/cOgRh5X5k8xrC3dlykZOpZ5mviyIuP513PZKLBbnWjWGD3odKvDR 8+369aurvQ7WZVncN7kJONo2UK3PTIH/R4oQy7J8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zproxy120.enst.fr
Received: from zproxy120.enst.fr ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (zproxy120.enst.fr [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id QrndAfalD_zI for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:13:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f177.google.com (mail-yb1-f177.google.com [209.85.219.177]) by zproxy120.enst.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8941680E61 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:13:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f177.google.com with SMTP id e187so292182ybc.5 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321OI6yl97ZmV9YH8TCYKcUlTcmVn5IoDo2iRiIvhkjODo1NIJw FKEIjwldW1tX5AS1HdYUHewJVga8JcIoQ9GlnFk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4IPxECQ97Fazwk2Lw2P8wisbEI/na9y/nntr6FRvIfhmReUzPRWIF6PzmhVa8gOo9cLgt3DSVjusW2RL/OGM=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:4dc4:: with SMTP id a187mr50297435ybb.422.1596032008483; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Laurent Toutain <laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:12:52 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CABONVQYewJT=cmnWwrLRfRc9Xp+4u+qTb8PLDH4TuCnyF3heKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABONVQYewJT=cmnWwrLRfRc9Xp+4u+qTb8PLDH4TuCnyF3heKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea7af405ab952867"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/rtVbkBOMzMMHtDuLyo19EBML7aQ>
Subject: [6lo] 6lo and SCHC
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:13:34 -0000

Hi Carles,

Thank you for the draft, it shows that 6lo and SCHC can work together. I've
few comments on the draft:

- NALP

I don't think we should impose the size of the ruleID in 6lo header, for
instance if a 6lo network is relaying a SCHC packet, it should know the
rule size to fill the field. if it does not care, it just copy the SCHC
packet after the NALP.

I will be more in favor of a NALP of 1 byte long then the SCHC packet. We
can specify some recommendations at it is currently done for LoRaWAN,
Sigfox or PPP to carry SCHC packet over 6lo.

- HC

Could be nice to have a HC_SCHC which keeps IPv6 header compression with
6lo and allows route-over. Same as for NALP, the SCHC format decoding is
done by SCHC.

Laurent

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email