Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Compression Reference and Coalescence

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Tue, 26 January 2016 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380A41B3089; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:23:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCtCSYPiLBqy; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:23:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2E0A1B305C; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:23:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=13352; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1453825417; x=1455035017; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=ReMbqqsefIuMBWbOGoowTfKq1wQDyYuXSViR25rS1RA=; b=OHANRvpEhluWDEA5p4vC35bQPon8tFWzP2nHWIMdxdsclfY8vckZQkTM SIMSEHJeTz1ovCus0+icCb7F4t9l7hefW3OV/riCWHyM4TKKZdtdRSjOY ILEqtjDTO16nwnQLo/vlg123jB9EYQPEH3Y7B/hhuXiN8qWO7n6V+y7l0 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,350,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="231492246"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Jan 2016 16:23:36 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0QGNaee008378 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:23:36 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:23:35 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:23:35 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Tengfei Chang <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] Compression Reference and Coalescence
Thread-Index: AQHRV1+bt08kYDUUHE+JUPXG1+5Hup8N+/DA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:23:23 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:22:46 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_078cb52ea1904304b32f2936e24e19a4XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Compression Reference and Coalescence
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" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:23:39 -0000

Hello Tengfei:

The draft is meant to express exactly what your reasonable case shows.
There is an example of that in appendix.
What exactly did I write improperly that it can be understood otherwise?

Take care ;


From: 6lo [] On Behalf Of Tengfei Chang
Sent: lundi 25 janvier 2016 12:00
Subject: [6lo] Compression Reference and Coalescence

Dear all,

I have some concern on the compression Reference and Coalescence.

In the 6lorh draft, all the hops in RH3 are compressed according to the compression reference (the source address, root usually). And when doing Coalescence, the process is kind of like taking the first address in first RH3 as the reference. The inconsistency between compression reference and Coalescense may waste some bytes in some cases.

For example:
A packet is issued by root with a compressed RH3 along an A->B->C->D source route path.

The nodes address are:
root:      bbbb::0000:0000:0000:0001
node A: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0001
node B: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0002
node C: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0003
node D: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0004

According to the 6lorh draft: all hops in RH3 will be compressed according to reference, which is the root. The  Packet received by node A is:
Type 3 RH3-6LoRH Size = 2  1111 2222 3333 0001
                                           1111 2222 3333 0002
                                           1111 2222 3333 0003

And which maybe more reasonable packet would be like :
Type 3 RH3-6LoRH Size = 0  1111 2222 3333 0001
Type 0 RH3-6LoRH Size = 1  02
Which means the first hop in first RH3 entry is compressed according to the reference(which is the root in this case) and the rest hops are compressed according to the first hop in first RH3 entry. For me, this compression way is more consistent  with the way when doing coalescence.

What do you think?