Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> Mon, 18 January 2016 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5881B36D4; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:26:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 arpMGexuMf1J; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x229.google.com (mail-yk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8811C1B36B2; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k129so589957776yke.0; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:26:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HPmN+zqwWhDjTj3fDkxCgm3XFjv1BYNBXhUZxQ0dJ94=; b=vsAlo2qE9+ICVc3qZnP9QFsC7ir4iFP7whP9yd8hS1Zm/qPc9afG2spBB0lOiaZDZa lAqRFBY63ihxiJu52fy5WOpNSJgtGLDikfkH+RjYlpsVLnsmLM4DNPCwrO5OY21SmkP0 hdsRxnUY0cFpVzIuWZz0lBssRyrU88iaFttvEDztIldT8DhYLQZvrR+Fau9ugZFGfQOU oItM6Z4qwWduvBM8EAXuRlf/IFjLIFHbPSpbv+eE+xoK5S53A5Xx6ph9xnAToyxjzTB0 njQkleTUmB9KVXrbhfzliVTIEV1eJIQ1ZIA2ec8EjIQx4rgXHf/XMhFv4T7ABbxFNAfE b2CA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HPmN+zqwWhDjTj3fDkxCgm3XFjv1BYNBXhUZxQ0dJ94=; b=LUy7YryZapTHd7QfppKqJ8PPd4D/IuXXmtIWf+jIGEWSq6519xMlpyFKPzJmHYUVK6 ET+exS1dDKvCxkrqFFcB3XB57vxGXYwWrdG+JSwMFMbut9tel03bJnHyhalfVWZicMhx XSMwFAQWcMakGru5gyipsqWfSnDu7pgpUxHh1CrY+t3g8QGcDS1TszEdU1n72uQEyR7I 1PFw4G90dcvP5neaTSq8H1vdZS/Gj+qOLwFwEJxb3us800QL2dxFrclrTl1YvnWs90fL JxWSmYUAg7Pg7fc4vR3L8785sUkHAij2SND2DBtOXg3kGwcCPUZOo66VObUR0BmWuH4h m1yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn184V+frE2F5fngtleEaq2a244SZaYR6t1KycA4UdiF95Ely7AmKN4PSfDpcokeDb73TU2EL+rm7Y4pgdAoBYoX/ECIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.155.14 with SMTP id s14mr14721185ywg.317.1453123582861; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.201.5 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 05:26:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c9bede2e2e2c4e2ca1fc69ecf47ce289@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAAdgstQRYJJFJLWbCJNJ93V0=SNz3GLxFawK=s6S2L4304-8MQ@mail.gmail.com> <c9bede2e2e2c4e2ca1fc69ecf47ce289@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:26:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAdgstQ66ZRfhahxZJvcRuB8gGV7fbEuzjxx6xdQs--vH2Xg=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b8d04f8c4e405299bb266
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/8dJ9mLqFqGDwjtOIqH0WLIhrf-o>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:26:25 -0000

I agree with this format! +1

Tengfei

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dear TengFei:
>
>
>
> I agree that the draft is lacking description when there is no IP in IP.
> I’ll create a ticket.
>
>
>
> When there is no IP in IP present in the 6LoRH, then the headers
> compressed by 6LoRH are considered placed right after the IP header
> compressed by IPHC, and considered as compressed. It results that the NH
> bit in the IPHC really indicates how the compression is done for the header
> that is after the headers compressed by 6LoRH.
>
>
>
> For an ICMP message I’d think that you’ll be using:
>
>
>
>    +- ...  -+- ...  -+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
>
>    |11110001|  RPI   |  NH = 0       | NH = 58  |  ICMP message
>
>    |Page 1  | 6LoRH  | 6LOWPAN-IPHC  | (ICMP)   |  (no compression)
>
>    +- ...  -+- ... +-+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
>
>                       <-        RFC 6282       ->
>
>                             No RPL artifact
>
>
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Tengfei Chang
> *Sent:* lundi 18 janvier 2016 09:18
> *To:* 6lo@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Currently I have a question about the format of packet inside of an RPL
> domain when using 6LoRH.
>
>
>
> For example when ping a mote inside an RPL domain, will the format of echo
> request and reply look like this?
>
>
>
> PAGE DISPATCH (page 1) + IPHC + 6LoRH RH3 + ICMPv6
>
> PAGE DISPATCH (page 1) + IPHC + 6LoRH RPI + ICMPv6
>
>
>
> If so, there is no next header field in 6LoRH to indicate the following
> field is ICMP.
>
> What's the right format for this case?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Tengfei
>