Re: [6tisch] [Roll] [6lo] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02.txt

Carsten Bormann <> Fri, 14 November 2014 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876891A1A88; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:05:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bGsKEGz5GYd9; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C90A81A1A76; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:05:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAEG5SDX017737; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:05:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0353131D; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:05:26 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:05:23 -1000
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 437673923.378725-851c10d7f5a88d5417173bfc256e53ff
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To:, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Cc: Pascal Thubert <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [Roll] [6lo] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thubert-6lo-rpl-nhc-02.txt
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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:05:55 -0000

On 14 Nov 2014, at 05:46, Robert Cragie <> wrote:
> Question - any reason the value 010001XY was chosen for the escape code?

Note that the escape space is not taken just for RFC 6553 compression; it can be used for encoding other NHCs as well.

The idea was to reserve some space around that so if we want to extend the escape space for some future NHC, we can do so while keeping it contiguous.

Note also that RFC 6282 already has variable length processing for hop limit and address compression, so the impact of adding a third instance is going to be limited.  (I need to write that up some more in draft-*-lwig-6lo.)

Since just about every data packet in a RPL network will carry an RPI, saving a single byte is worth quite some effort.

Grüße, Carsten