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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 19 January 2016 20:34 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 9DD0F1B35C9; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:34:07 -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, 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 L9oAoJq8X4AS; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:34:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBAC21B35C7; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0158E200A5; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:42:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A9C637A0; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:34:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se>
In-Reply-To: <CAMxvJtJ0F_SYe023Bv0y6DixTSQi=PTaKd56ECZdrrrXBk3ApA@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>
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 15:34:04 -0500
Message-ID: <2416.1453235644@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/ouSdUOlyu_valhkfccUU948Lfr0>
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 20:34:07 -0000

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 =-