Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Carsten Bormann <> Wed, 13 August 2014 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88FE1A024C; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.348
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FB_CIALIS_LEO3=3.899, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3-U63D7qrw_1; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB601A0240; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7DL2WAY010151; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:02:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EECFB646; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:02:31 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:02:30 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 429656550.493394-0b0371c33024aed2238ba978ba9bb142
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: 6man WG <>, " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:02:39 -0000

>> This seems to me to be the strong technical argument in favor of the draft. While Carsten's approach seems better technically, it only works for 6lowpan, and RPL should be independent of the underlying link layer.

The transport of RPL specific information for data plane packets already *is* independent of the underlying link layer, as specified in RFC 6553 and RFC 6554.  All we are talking about here is an optimization for those (for 6553, specifically; actually 6554 is probably the one even more in need).

> Could we consider Carsten's approach a compression mechanism for the RPL information options, rather than a replacement, thereby allowing a one-to-one translation between compressed mode on 6lowpan networks and uncompressed mode in other networks?

Indeed, that is probably the best way to view this approach.
(In the next version of the draft, I’ll emphasize this.)

My assumption here is:
— Any subnet that could not live with transporting RFC 6553 as is, i.e. 8 bytes extra compared to the flow label approach (for uncompressed packets*), already needs (and, at this point, has) a header compression solution for the expansive IPv6 header anyway.
  So adding RFC 6553 compression to that solution is the natural approach.
— All subnets that can live with the IPv6 header as is, also can live with RFC 6553 as is.

This argument is on a technical level.
I’m not talking about cognitive dissonance**) here, or political issues.
If there are important political issues (I have no idea what the ISA100/WCI talk is about), they probably need to be brought out in the open here.

Grüße, Carsten

*) less difference for header-compressed packets, e.g., 5 bytes for 6lo.
**), section 2.6