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

Simon Duquennoy <simonduq@sics.se> Tue, 19 January 2016 21:50 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 8507D1B3619; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:10 -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 63znYUX692mX; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 66BA01B36A7; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n5so134107796wmn.0; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:09 -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=AFU69h4EKO6oZtD8MGSXcJQwqyfxgzRh34w7m1GBe8A=; b=qrVMV4sw/ykA0gjhNpvGG+2itpZSWLsAUTEWqVFbQ0Lw3c0PV5KPXIeBnVWfTE2UvT SDj3NXCfNKtEx/uOESQCY2briUjdG47yQ9+VrycEGeUH4QvKn/JShHK2Mc+f8zu3xK/f ufZYo0lU0fuzFeJMK5T6MpYGG0tNutj3B3ineGuqSZLOl4u/rai1QD/D2dYCr+sm1+mV xmvte5Nk9hfUt29H6MesiEvhSSyyNEDOdBfX/iuxeIKj5yK3rZid2qln5WxCkqR1gIGo OqvfDtk+MZlqL4FFpTqrCFRPW3n5TbDMrLKPN6VUnqWcEd0WEKcM4a+RlnXQpu7A9yq4 cY0g==
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=AFU69h4EKO6oZtD8MGSXcJQwqyfxgzRh34w7m1GBe8A=; b=PqitEmM1kFLj+fNXRYP9SEgNToBIKPqGl6j18LX/sSQjZXmLiv1EZynPUCFHP57zvX oIy9E9fFt5JEwkAkdwxK30R66BJ+BIuhtptSr1dlBK+kb9sRiuTActhc3ptVKF9quzVJ qH3+UX4we1pAMicykBT98EJPmJUJYR63lIKMb/9dUOm23I8NJTs78TRaCsLijSs7CDJz r69JR/ZA0vnjMU96WDOXd63Bw+BcGWFN9B6GR6nlMP9lJMoAwcB6TFOO/iVyjDeJiARc kO1OBWKHYlnYu17txmwmZZMu/3xUZo/zjRjWyHY8hSRd8SGArMaKab/DPxAsl8qfNaQo wlUQ==
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=AFU69h4EKO6oZtD8MGSXcJQwqyfxgzRh34w7m1GBe8A=; b=WAEkZfW+kAjw3OjzpzMomvkpU6ts8h1yBz1RU2nFA9PhcjNk3LTl8p3VUUfESkyN9u 7n9SAzNn3tpOElbK4rTrvsb+S40Ebsgnq35BomV6QzJ0xsCg6agjHAcKdYECRsDgOgge 5o2J1MtGUhI2Ah5hCAaJutsZi3xIhDoL8wwwtspORu0SE4VtgDUNpGakPRfEJdxPIIu5 fzmIiQKhcsdA6iSHDaBZJYZb6/O8Z8Ylo6diTnVhHKG2b7zEgMazcCWPudexAjai66we moMdTvgMQMl6Coi7rQLfM8UBm60kVTcnbMxXhV2faPVqQFJhYUOnK01jSET8cOAI3/hz W6gQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzF5yJR+SkkOaUZ1gTZg3nTPOtpFJ18p6TlC6pvWOBK2+xcwpGDtBE79aG2TzoYWDdg1kwry/bZfodk3qaZ/CLNQxINg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.95.34 with SMTP id dh2mr31331492wjb.63.1453240208002; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:08 -0800 (PST)
Sender: simon.duquennoy@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.79.97 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:50:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <18432.1453239740@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> <ca1efcb2f850414d9ee9728bd310f18e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <18432.1453239740@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:50:07 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: iSeAj66_-0RJFZF5-oiPD65-U9c
Message-ID: <CAMxvJtLGzD82VS2r+DLQG0kbuoyk8eA8LCJ2qErxMcffJGm0nQ@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/s6yfE-XEkdM9oej7BE-SW6y-Q74>
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 21:50:10 -0000

Not really. It was rather my view of the architecture that differs a
bit from what you describe in your previous mail.
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.

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>     > destination does not have the same reference as 6554 either. And the final
>     > destination may have a different prefix than the core of the mesh, so using
>     > addresses in the mesh like RFC 6554 and the new proposal do seems a better
>     > idea. RFC 6554 is emulated in the current draft by representing the first
>     > address in full, since that is the end of the current segment in the 6LoRH
>     > format. But to compress it, we need a reference, thus the idea to use the
>     > root as opposed to the final destination.
>
> Simon, is it the fact that the root is present here that makes you feel that
> it's linked?
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>