[6tisch] Question on draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00

Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 13:51 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 870471B2BC3; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 05:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 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, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, SPF_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 7lmDwcXYdAir; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 05:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com (mail-yk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]) (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 42ADB1B2BB1; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 05:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v14so222346342ykd.3; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 05:51:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jpbBzFiYYgo6ewdfRvjdQ/+5seP9vXr3r09JkuT0tsI=; b=B4tctb09v/Ep+lJpt/rQR2KYSq+7sXzd1xaQsQ4nauFjy1ykXbpnd1jG9R4dgdpXgo gI89TFBLUTifmZQJVaYwcb9CyJCDdUGQJQMObQQF/bSi43aPPfj15wqq7CiD6OiwPJcD Trmm1FqVR0W/6dQLcameYwbWp2dNSMMg6zDoMEV3RmvJPmAuy1f6Sb4GqAa4g9s5Kor5 JyIYFr7lu5lhgF1QN3dqofneUuSEXgFSWz1+80cRkw+qmBa5uMt7+bmYkoMKRsDO9ybP dK4HbR/n+TwuNgE2SQ98xgSyE3FQJiu6qMBSRCdq22IIoRmhPneinGyy3iyJ9ey24cDE VMOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.155.14 with SMTP id s14mr69834160ywg.317.1452088297404; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 05:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.201.5 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 05:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:51:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAdgstTyZnBNxckLX87g78b7o-_f+43vyft4LTyON1MKtMxkwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, 6lo@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b8d042640a50528aaa779"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/DfneRAX4u0Y22Ompa0DnwIV36qs>
Subject: [6tisch] Question on draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:51:39 -0000

Dear Pascal,

Recently Jonathan and I are working on the implementation of new 6loRH
draft: draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00. There are something in the draft
we are not that clear yet and we would like to ask. Following are the
question:

1. in section 4.2, second paragraph:
*One or more 6LoRHs MAY be placed in a 6LoWPAN packet and MUST always*
*be placed before the LOWPAN_IPHC [RFC6282].*

What's the situation when Ip-in-Ip encapsulation structure was used?

2. section 8: IP-in-IP 6LoRH first paragraph:
*The IP-in-IP 6LoRH (IPinIP-6LoRH) is an Elective 6LoWPAN Routing*
*Header that provides a compressed form for the encapsulating IPv6*
*Header in the case of an IP-in-IP encapsulation.*

According to the description, it the IPinIP-6LoRH is a combination of
IPHC+RH3 but in a compressed format?

For example: following is the format of packet containing routing header
which defined in old draft using an Ip-in-Ip encapsulation:
MACheader + IPHC + RH3 + IPv6ExT + IPHC + ICMPv6

If we are using the 6LoRH, will it turns to :
MACheader + Paging Dispatch(page 1) + IPinIP-6LoRH + IPv6ExT + IPHC + ICMPv6

Is this correct? If not, what it should be? Thanks!

Jonathan, please corret me if there are something I didn't say clear .
Thank you!

Regard,
Jonathan, Tengfei