IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Padding and draft-pfister-6man-sadr-ra - Call for opinions on TLV format and type D host definition

Dan Lüdtke <mail@danrl.de> Wed, 06 May 2015 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mail@danrl.de>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650161B2ABF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 UrzZ2n-EEYwX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.sealand.io (mx.sealand.io [193.160.39.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E006B1B2AB3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.228.13.231] (unknown [88.128.80.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.sealand.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B275C60D78; Wed, 6 May 2015 12:40:48 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Subject: Re: Padding and draft-pfister-6man-sadr-ra - Call for opinions on TLV format and type D host definition
From: Dan Lüdtke <mail@danrl.de>
In-Reply-To: <7B44DA9E-65B6-437F-BA21-CFED54512103@darou.fr>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 12:40:43 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B2ED11B-3885-400D-9B5A-7C5B851B65D1@danrl.de>
References: <FC3DDE3B-0F66-4F8D-98FD-7E957C6A75D9@darou.fr> <55479FA1.9090101@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqceUWRwQqbtKe4kNM-gJ_0XQBKHFZ6a7f7jDCam1pLjFw@mail.gmail.com> <5549C78B.8050404@gmail.com> <9EB56366-8BD9-49E0-BE67-B4E876928918@danrl.de> <7B44DA9E-65B6-437F-BA21-CFED54512103@darou.fr>
To: Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/unNKoUuv-QjCEU2PEIn0pjmruVU>
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 06 May 2015 10:40:53 -0000

Hi all,

Having either 64 or 128 long prefixes would be a compromise. Everything else seems to complex for too little gain from my point of view. But let me think about that a bit.

> On 6 May 2015, at 11:33, Pierre Pfister <pierre.pfister@darou.fr> wrote:
> 
> On the other side, not aligning may require a memcpy. Which is not going to kill your cpu neither.

I care more about the bus than the CPU here. But lets discuss that on a different level. What are good reasons for compression in the first place? On links were compression matters, isn’t there already compression below the network layer?

Cheers

Dan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email