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

[Simon Duquennoy <[e-mail]>]

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
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>