IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] draft-chairs-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-00.txt

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Sat, 25 July 2015 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 DB22A1A882E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 iPDEET8KeZe2 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985DD1A8754 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11368; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1437836905; x=1439046505; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=IOg9vdLaVOswxVx99Sj7kO37mXLanYRuJ/qy579E1Jc=; b=hSEiiN3+4gl5Ry1Ms2NDTk7SrhQ9tRYkDlt0DEsDwmcqyuLvE6flqbqG 7YjxnNtPPBKUzeZ8qqiNuWxKQtYfeAIB8B2+vOWeYU/CSfpOLBeU8D2Qu cxmNmXPo9ZTRA0rFr69EOjQ/nPKbjcNFgXtQztpiiKir0+JKBwkwgwj6y k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AMBQDjpbNV/4kNJK1cgkhNVGkGgx24VodwAhyBHjkTAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDASMKTAULAgEIDgMEAQELHQMCAgIwFAkIAgQOBQiIHgi5W5YEAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tOhFYxBgGCaS+BFAWRWYMQAYxBgUSIH4tgg2Img31vgUiBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,542,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="172455445"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 Jul 2015 15:08:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6PF8NsW019989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:08:23 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.72]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:08:23 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Jonathan Hui <jonhui@nestlabs.com>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] draft-chairs-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQxYmwQAlhbIBtjkyDnu41ROLRd53sS4uw
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:08:23 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:08:01 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F4C810@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C39990C@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <CAO6tK45NVtbN4gON+fcQA=xzzV0Wd00Jqgo78i6LP5QV_j71Sg@mail.gmail.com> <ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C39B48B@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <CAO6tK474ga37g29Ope8XxsPB67iBpsSAsPhXqXfMcyvCm6_+xg@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F0A949@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F02222FBA1@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F47890@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAO6tK45Et-A1pRJKRbPz5d4UD4zUcrWuTy=A8L+FZj78kfrVog@mail.gmail.com> <BF00A164-EE85-442C-A9AE-7FE7FA769CDD@cisco.com> <CAO6tK44p6qjze5iR-KYg=5odvRoMEa71n51mrY_pGc2ZaxSxOw@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F48BE1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAO6tK47Z7sPtpN3cRS6w=PRJ6Sdh65Bv6dV1fC+z4O36dvH_Jg@mail.gmail.com> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F48E31@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <CAO6tK44UBh6Ks=MOd14+o5pKJMVBrdqmTKXbm_vQnNQnN41Wcg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO6tK44UBh6Ks=MOd14+o5pKJMVBrdqmTKXbm_vQnNQnN41Wcg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.192.245]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849F4C810xmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/vUdscz4m-Sij1aSvqKsQweHzMOA>
Cc: Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chairs-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-00.txt
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: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:08:37 -0000

Hello Jonathan:

We discussed that an it confused folks. So it was removed from the last draft.
Clearly the proposal 3.2 eliminates a capability to use RFC 4944 stuff after the page is passed.
If we wanted to restore that, we’d define a page for RFC 4944 that is implicit today.
I’m not saying that this is better than your proposition since IMHO it is not.
But I want to clarify what’s on the table…

Cheers,

Pascal

From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:jonhui@nestlabs.com]
Sent: jeudi 23 juillet 2015 22:54
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Samita Chakrabarti; 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-chairs-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-00.txt


On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:

For example, only define two types of headers (elective and critical) and only use a single bit to distinguish between them.  Then cast everything (including RFC 4944 and RFC 6282) within those headers.  For example, don't bother to reserve 00xxxxxx for something else.


>    Why bother casting 4944 stuff? It is already on page one. Could you clarify?
What if I want to use the same 6loRH header to source route individual 6lo fragments?  Yes, doing so incurs the overhead of source routing on each fragment, but then there is no need to reassemble at every hop and allows sending fragments along different paths.

--
Jonathan Hui

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email