Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 June 2011 16:58 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE59811E8190 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1S5FwCsm6D+l for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E257D11E818A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p59GwcSB004786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:58:38 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p59GwbBV009660; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:58:38 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [132.166.133.178] (is010173.intra.cea.fr [132.166.133.178]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p59GwbjK016444; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:58:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4DF0FBBD.1070109@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:58:37 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft
References: <37E3AA7855F5AB4B8220815B379D1ACE064DCF74DB@dlee02.ent.ti.com> <37E3AA7855F5AB4B8220815B379D1ACE064DCF74E5@dlee02.ent.ti.com> <DE92901D19672647B9ADB0CB499498650508B31DB8@dlee02.ent.ti.com> <81F856BA-79E9-464F-9452-80E79B68F671@cisco.com> <DE92901D19672647B9ADB0CB499498650508B3293A@dlee02.ent.ti.com> <201104261256.p3QCucF4014183@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <DE92901D19672647B9ADB0CB499498650508C0FBEB@dlee02.ent.ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <DE92901D19672647B9ADB0CB499498650508C0FBEB@dlee02.ent.ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:58:41 -0000
Le 27/04/2011 01:39, Reddy, Joseph a écrit : > > 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. Hm? IP-in-IP tunnelling is not used to insert routing headers. (do you mean that because of some perception tunnels are too big for low-bandwidth links and hence Routing Headers should be used? In terms of bytecount I think a Routing Header takes about the same number of bytes than adding a Base Header (i.e. use IP-in-IP tunnelling).) > This is detailed in the draft > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 The draft says: > However, where LLNs are severely constrained in resources, IP-in-IP > tunneling may not be the most favorable solution. Use of IP-in-IP > requires datagrams to carry two IPv6 headers, increasing header > overhead and associated communication and memory requirements. Try to evaluate how much overhead is that: compare the size in bytes of one (not two) Base Headers (40bytes) to the size of a Routing Header containing one address (24bytes). HEaders of an IP-in-IP packet vs RH packet are like this: Base+IP-in-IP: 80bytes. Base+RH: 64bytes. ----------------------- 16bytes difference, potentially saved by preferring RH. Minimal MTU is 1280bytes. Saving 16byte is little worth the trouble. Alex > but I realize now this draft expired recently. Perhaps this can be > revived as it is helps to improve the applicability of RPL protocol. > > -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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Reddy, Joseph
- RE: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Daniel Gavelle
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Jonathan Hui
- Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Reddy, Joseph
- Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Reddy, Joseph
- RE: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Reddy, Joseph
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Thomas Narten
- RE: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Reddy, Joseph
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Thomas Narten
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Brian Haberman
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Thomas Narten
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Brian Haberman
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Thomas Narten
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Brian Haberman
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Thomas Narten
- Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft Alexandru Petrescu