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

Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se> Tue, 19 January 2016 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.duquennoy@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 821531B360B; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:54:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 kn9ixqN1r_Nc; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 1B1E11B360A; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id n5so132173977wmn.0; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:54:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/yXwaNP2FM2AFWcx2St5kURsRceni0q+mqVb/qywcJA=; b=BgKlnivj1BruM08BE81Q0Tm9IRDifGLJLkLqLe993/NAMP3ALpvge46akl3H28HC7E +95Nw7cWr14ajxnxCL+qQ9Og8gcVpCN5py2xdtsimX34qzgYFBDxGqRHdkXVc7Dw8rNO xnv/RVakOLPIRLbN7PSS78sTIzLtbmbDoJiQG492uJ4NC6B6YfrTH6myhmfFKOzPZYsh YJiKDvIroHcY/4a0+KbzQRKMJklBTU3w5X2UAa4Ldlm2zqt8dd2i5ekUMEJwvI55iFyJ g5kmaFO3KKe/EX2LBkZi7RfAzhU7j7WgWYHx6Cl+KlwOcO8cbBk16+Iduf8tUTE3kDHm /LKA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sics-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/yXwaNP2FM2AFWcx2St5kURsRceni0q+mqVb/qywcJA=; b=wH4GZhG+rI60nM5accjLXo/RhBqobD9pkj9rCwosHXaUGQcEdSQ+WWHQ1KYZpWp0ZV +H7CNrRvGKYcLwptAaf0/hgSJlnPZ69LnO5gOkhNKnqaHWGhKiyYM5yqmU0awvYki1Ug zlbROaSZz7hN2pxI/4tXcmUs8aopwaN0Gspjr5jaYjhNbDnoKhx48XxNxEjY8oODbKVg TrPdXyscqz/q8iVxbvfvKDHuE70CQHW92KzrdW96ckhDzX05eyrZ9z/4+QW73IuG3J+n OpSEXolpKdgDuVRgsF+DzVZrZ9fpJU8kR3ptuob0UiC+45Hf8sgqMCyEr+v3iC7QtnMv ApAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/yXwaNP2FM2AFWcx2St5kURsRceni0q+mqVb/qywcJA=; b=KW3zXsNYsi+G2vQqSnUvzxlQPupug3Ll28AIQabErNkU2pUTO6LUAfEkhSQstcEO8j LJl+J3nXxor3aHJO3Os8jo75ixNm9sYo1Zv9kFGYlUTfNgEw4sH8xzwDAOw57mGwMeQO 5OVrhA4E8m6tESggcZ3NkgjVfDc6/f1lUxMeHdYB7nlticaKbHIolK5IZ3GoaFEq7zgb UsWr7ObPjLcLUT+9MtKyc08XhAmq4gF37c+2ofZmMKMdvnFMk1CKwX1HA4rX+Vu+eNd/ MvLy6XWYrblQd2p1B3qgPwCj6wQSXPbOsJSE1H+B+Hm692BbvL7SKRFPNWkY0Clm8+CS Qc8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS3017khbhlrMCvnNqh3n7CPhVJW0X+FZiK/ngnc8tMowm6p0OF6ID44VMcvkrRfi9Il7IEcvTUZOACpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.16.78 with SMTP id 75mr38645wmq.82.1453236880554; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:54:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: simon.duquennoy@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.79.97 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:54:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2416.1453235644@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
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> <2416.1453235644@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:54:40 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5Wk4E--GqqGhTeeROfJGUKr69Kg
Message-ID: <CAMxvJtJ5ZR_fMh3KvH_yePwEaWKBDNaD4+SnO-W=vDf97Uru-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/UbhfZj1f885eKp6pwIF-GWuWixE>
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 20:54:43 -0000

Any level of awareness is too much, IMO a RPL implementation should
run unmodified yet benefit from 6LoRH.
For instance, if RPL produces a RH3 with cmpri of 6 and cmpre of 10,
we end up with two RH3-6LoRH, each with its own "size unit", which has
to be power of two -- we end up with a compressed possibly larger than
the original.
Another example is when more than two RH3-6LoRH are included to
benefit from a variety of compression levels: in such case, it is not
even possible to translate the compressed back into a standard RH3.

Generally speaking 6lowpan offers one-to-one mappings between
compressed and original headers, I think it is a pity that 6LoRH
doesn't.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
> Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se> wrote:
>     > I feel we need to make sure any valid RH3 can be compressed with 6LoRH. This
>     > way, RPL implementations do not need to be aware of 6LoRH.
>
> I'm sensitive to your need, but I'm not sure it's worthwhile.
>
> What kind of awareness do you feel is required?
> There needs to be some communication of what are the interesting prefixes.
> I don't see this as a problem.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>