IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Thu, 19 May 2011 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=11397edf3=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lowpan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A844BE07C4; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fOv1zlbygir4; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1468E0751; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([129.89.7.132]) by ip1mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 19 May 2011 10:28:56 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCFBE6AB8; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:28:57 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ckyh5ipflGRO; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:28:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.165]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B21E6A71; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:28:56 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:28:56 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Jonathan Hui <jonhui@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1428052733.376700.1305818936603.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <E368BC15-0E20-4C76-AB66-D571ED8650AE@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.92]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.9_GA_2686)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>, 6lowpan <6lowpan@ietf.org>, cabo@tzi.org
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt
X-BeenThere: 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working group discussion for IPv6 over LowPan networks <6lowpan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan>
List-Post: <mailto:6lowpan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan>, <mailto:6lowpan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:28:58 -0000

I would be able to do a comparative analysis of two methods as soon as I understand the mechanism described in draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc. I have already spent a couple of hours trying to understand draft-bormann. At the moment, I cant figure out how the compression mechanism (Section 2) works and how was it applied to the examples listed in the draft. I suspect the draft does not have sufficient level of explanatory text at the moment.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@cisco.com>
To: "Mukul Goyal" <mukul@uwm.edu>
Cc: "6lowpan" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "roll" <roll@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:07:24 PM
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt


How does this compare to draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc?  It seems most of the gain will be from compressing out prefixes and zeros, which ghc should handle quite well.

--
Jonathan Hui

On May 18, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> Fragmentation of RPL control messages has emerged as one of the key concerns when RPL is run over IEEE 802.15.4 networks. The submitted draft specifies a compression mechanism for RPL control messages. We have currently specified compression formats for DIO messages and some of the options that sit inside a DIO. Future versions of this draft may include compression formats for other DIO options as well as other RPL control messages. The mechanism can even be extended to ICMPv6 messages in general.
> 
> Thanks
> Mukul
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: mukul@uwm.edu
> Cc: "jerald p martocci" <jerald.p.martocci@jci.com>, "emmanuel baccelli" <emmanuel.baccelli@inria.fr>, mukul@uwm.edu, "matthias philipp" <matthias.philipp@inria.fr>, abr@sdesigns.dk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:50:20 PM
> Subject: New Version Notification for	draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Mukul Goyal and posted to the IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-goyal-6lowpan-rpl-compression
> Revision:	 00
> Title:		 A Compression Format for RPL Control Messages Over a 6lowpan
> Creation date:	 2011-05-17
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 10
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document specifies a compression format for ICMPv6 RPL control
>   messages over a 6lowpan.  The specified format is in accordance with
>   IPv6 header compression framework defined for a 6lowpan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email