Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

Hi,

yes I agree, that was the introduction of my mail about my feeling on the compression.

Happy that we agree on that.

Cédric.

Le 3 sept. 2011 à 08:42, Ietf Roll a écrit :

No one is talking about (or should not be talking about binding rpl to any specific l1/l2, but we are talking about compressing bits and that is useful on ANY l1/l2 - 802.15.4, 802.15.4g, 802.11LP and PLC.  Less bits sent means less time on air, less contention, less power, less less less.  So let's attempt to fix RPL now and get rid of the packet bloat.

rav

________________________________
From: C Chauvenet <c.chauvenet@watteco.com<mailto:c.chauvenet@watteco.com>>
To: Angelo P. Castellani <angelo@castellani.net<mailto:angelo@castellani.net>>
Cc: roll WG <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption of draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression as a new ROLL WG document

Hi,

Because RPL is a Route-Over routing protocol, it is applicable to many different L1/L2, including the well-known 802.14.5 and their last improvements/updates, PLC  and many others ...

Thus, I think we should avoid to bind RPL to some specifics L1/L2, or we would need to update RPL for each new L1/L2 created that aim to use RPL.

Cédric.

Le 1 sept. 2011 à 10:32, Angelo P. Castellani a écrit :

> I slightly changed my mind about this +1.
>
> Probably a good way to avoid this problem is to require the update of
> the RPL packet format only for those mediums where the use of a
> synthetic packet formats is a strong requirement (e.g. 802.15.4).
>
> As detailed in , the conditions can be characterized in a more general
> way, avoiding referencing single technologies in the standard:
> "If the L2 medium does not support frames longer than X, than only the
> synthetic packet format MUST be used."
>
> In this way we avoid manual configuration and supporting both formats
> in devices that target implementing this spec on very limited L2
> medium.
>
> In other words, synthetic packet format should be a MUST for some
> lower layer technologies characterized by some parameters (without
> referencing specific technologies).
>
> Best,
> Angelo
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:03, Angelo P. Castellani
> <angelo@castellani.net<mailto:angelo@castellani.net>> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 23:46, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr@sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org<mailto:ietf@thomasclausen.org>> writes:
>>>    Thomas> I'd much like a routing protocol, designed for low-power,
>>>    Thomas> lossy networks and with low-MTU MACs as one of its
>>>    Thomas> design-target to be able to run over these networks. If
>>>    Thomas> _this_ early a need for an alternative, more compact, packet
>>>    Thomas> format is identified, then by all means let's get RPL
>>>    Thomas> updated to use that alternative, more compact, packet
>>>    Thomas> format. I have absolutely no problems with that.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Roll mailing list
>>> Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org<mailto:Roll@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll