Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Proposed improvement in RH3-6LoRH

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 19 January 2016 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 16E881B36D1; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 axsO97-edQ-5; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C881B36CF; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D0D200A5; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:14:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8B4637A0; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:06:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se>
In-Reply-To: <CAMxvJtLGzD82VS2r+DLQG0kbuoyk8eA8LCJ2qErxMcffJGm0nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <efa57b85d5174e579bc553ff1ad3af63@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAAdgstQXj80Pu-Syt_QuxD4_8V0PqEZqxVDsnyGdbBA-hGxEKQ@mail.gmail.com> <2c372ed593ad4d12a7ffff81c3ada270@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAAdgstSiochR48+XVV3wCScd_XEttO0Us3rWNu=XVsO8_=kw2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMxvJtLCN_6+NPruYu5J5KHOybbu+PdDeod7V8S+_iZTKhZTCg@mail.gmail.com> <1ebd8224c530495eba190b8b71f633f6@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAMxvJtJ0F_SYe023Bv0y6DixTSQi=PTaKd56ECZdrrrXBk3ApA@mail.gmail.com> <ca1efcb2f850414d9ee9728bd310f18e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <18432.1453239740@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAMxvJtLGzD82VS2r+DLQG0kbuoyk8eA8LCJ2qErxMcffJGm0nQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:06:22 -0500
Message-ID: <24959.1453241182@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/Ki41zc96YuuyOB3JEi118dSBz6Y>
Cc: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Proposed improvement in RH3-6LoRH
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: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:06:25 -0000

Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se> wrote:
    > Not really. It was rather my view of the architecture that differs a
    > bit from what you describe in your previous mail.

okay.

    > For me RPL produces the RH3 and then passes the packet down the stack
    > for compression. Or for incoming packets, first there is
    > decompression, then the IPv6 packet with its headers and extension
    > headers are passed up to RPL etc. If find it odd to force upper layers
    > to work on 6lowpan compressed formats.

RPL is the thing in RFC6550, a routing protocol, that runs over ICMP ND messages.

I think the thing you are describing is the IPv6 stack, and you don't like
that the IPv6 stack has to interact with the link adaptation layer.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/