IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 04 August 2014 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BA81B2B10; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] 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 l4lO3PNrG7zK; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 262FB1B2B0F; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D0320029; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id F279363AC9; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1D8638D6; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:02:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9A525A33-FC53-4574-86F9-0FC4E8E5EC43@cs.stanford.edu>
References: <CAP+sJUeLa9r2otVv41ezg1Om--XzM84w3MOvCyn7bawDA7Oqgw@mail.gmail.com> <69656203-C009-4ABE-BCAD-17622058FEB9@cs.stanford.edu> <53D84C2C.9050709@gmail.com> <140F7EAF-B3B2-4F39-B676-5901457BF494@cs.stanford.edu> <CAMsDxWQTMBWS6GY7q5cT9FVds-obdE45PiLWVEqbV8HMpjbSsA@mail.gmail.com> <53DB675C.9000502@tm.uka.de> <CAMsDxWTGG1MMaYPTcQqsBb78GuzsPun_k7r6Qi29fELp=z-mKA@mail.gmail.com> <53DB88B7.80205@tm.uka.de> <CAMsDxWROddNcfcWATpr4wmM+iMGhn4xMGO77f6hGvmRB9+Ow6g@mail.gmail.com> <B80833DA-CF92-4F84-91FA-A45A74B4D03D@cs.stanford.edu> <6439.1407007393@sandelman.ca> <06C4F090-4731-4917-84F1-7C5798574F42@cs.stanford.edu> <CADJ9OA_=FnuaaR_On_AJoqSVHfvUtcsxcM7WyLMR41AwQA5B-A@mail.gmail.com> <9A525A33-FC53-4574-86F9-0FC4E8E5EC43@cs.stanford.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:02:27 -0400
Message-ID: <23675.1407160947@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/BZb5MDa6kYHJZ81NC5OKeneer5o
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:02:34 -0000

Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
    > 5% or 10% isn't huge, but it is significant and valuable. I've just
    > been a bit confused as to why this proposal has been trotted around for
    > 4 years and yet no-one had yet even done this simple calculation, so WG
    > members could make an informed engineering decision. IMO, a 5-10%

my opinion:

1) the exact calculation was hard to really do until 6tisch made it clearer
   what the duty cycle was going to be.

2) it took awhile to come back to figuring out how to deal with the flow
   label issue.

3) it is now clear exactly how close many of our packets are to the 127 byte
   limit, and how much the HbH header hurts if it is the reason we go into
   two fraglets.

4) we had other things to worry about!

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status