Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft

Hi Joseph,

On 4/26/11 7:39 PM, Reddy, Joseph wrote:
> 
> Hi Thomas
> 
> Since RPL protocol is intended to operate in networks with
> constrained devices and lossy, low-bandwidth links, there is a desire
> to not require IP-in-IP tunnelling that is usually used for inserting
> routing headers. This is detailed in the draft
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 but I
> realize now this draft expired recently. Perhaps this can be revived
> as it is helps to improve the applicability of RPL protocol.

That draft has been replaced with draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header.  I
suggest that you take a look at that draft (currently being reviewed by
the IESG), especially section 4.

Regards,
Brian

> 
> -Joseph
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten
> [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:57 AM To:
> Reddy, Joseph Cc: Jonathan Hui; 'ipv6@ietf.org' Subject: Re: Comment
> on rpl-routing-header draft
> 
>> In the most common usage of this header, the border router inserts
>> a source routing header with the full set of intermediate nodes
>> before forwarding it towards the destination within the RPL
>> network.
> 
> and then.
> 
>> Yes, we do not use IP-in-IP tunneling and instead simply insert the
>> RH head= er in the packet.
> 
> What specification are you following that says do this?
> 
> Routing headers (as designed and specified) are inserted by an
> originating node (whether the original sender or a tunnel entry
> point). If you have a middle node insert this header to an existing
> packet, no suprise things are not going to work.
> 
> Thomas 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------