IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 18 January 2016 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.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 CC8BE1B32D1; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 1E3OxCkff70C; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB2A81B32CC; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:41:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12964; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1453106499; x=1454316099; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FPHIjLe3QOhunN1PfZwRB3Oo3Jjs7WGjQooRihbChBY=; b=TWkQOG+Rz0ZaNSyM9DUkHiRKnph9H7BTr39V4J/t3Br6/nWoaL6qzCHw OTI8xQFzglo5zQja6x+0xcx1bLmE5RuPbNbr4s7zQAqHBiRwdIovtp6nD 1PMgjDbYmJPFxt/SwRT/u6GM0qdPpdWy7ZeK1gyzTOQb0m9YVNeCsnPpI I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D4AQBBpJxW/4UNJK1egm5MUm0GiFCzPAENgWOGDwIcgQw4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBCMEBkwQAgEIEQQBASgDAgICMBQJCAIEAQ0FCIgTrkqPdQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiGVYR/hERJgmeBSQWTE4QHAY1XjwiOXAEgAQFChAtyhheBCAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,312,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="64552996"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Jan 2016 08:41:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0I8fcKE013820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:41:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:41:38 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:41:38 -0600
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@gmail.com>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain
Thread-Index: AQHRUci5uBhIXB/I6k2WIELC55OLK58A7yVg
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:41:24 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:40:27 +0000
Message-ID: <c9bede2e2e2c4e2ca1fc69ecf47ce289@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAAdgstQRYJJFJLWbCJNJ93V0=SNz3GLxFawK=s6S2L4304-8MQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAdgstQRYJJFJLWbCJNJ93V0=SNz3GLxFawK=s6S2L4304-8MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c9bede2e2e2c4e2ca1fc69ecf47ce289XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/xHvDiIike6GtH5LZTAQglvRQ5Zs>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain
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: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:41:42 -0000

Dear TengFei:

I agree that the draft is lacking description when there is no IP in IP. I’ll create a ticket.

When there is no IP in IP present in the 6LoRH, then the headers compressed by 6LoRH are considered placed right after the IP header compressed by IPHC, and considered as compressed. It results that the NH bit in the IPHC really indicates how the compression is done for the header that is after the headers compressed by 6LoRH.

For an ICMP message I’d think that you’ll be using:

   +- ...  -+- ...  -+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
   |11110001|  RPI   |  NH = 0       | NH = 58  |  ICMP message
   |Page 1  | 6LoRH  | 6LOWPAN-IPHC  | (ICMP)   |  (no compression)
   +- ...  -+- ... +-+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
                      <-        RFC 6282       ->
                            No RPL artifact

Does that make sense?

Pascal

From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tengfei Chang
Sent: lundi 18 janvier 2016 09:18
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain

Dear All,

Currently I have a question about the format of packet inside of an RPL domain when using 6LoRH.

For example when ping a mote inside an RPL domain, will the format of echo request and reply look like this?

PAGE DISPATCH (page 1) + IPHC + 6LoRH RH3 + ICMPv6
PAGE DISPATCH (page 1) + IPHC + 6LoRH RPI + ICMPv6

If so, there is no next header field in 6LoRH to indicate the following field is ICMP.
What's the right format for this case?

Thanks a lot!
Tengfei

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email