Re: [Roll] Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

Thank you for your reply.

Please correct me if I am wrong, It seems to me that the routing fragments
are not aligned with the current roll charter.

In case that we do a roll-rechartering we could discuss whether integrate
this draft or not. Independent of the result, we want to say thank you very
much for your hard work put in this document.

Please any comments are very welcome,

Kind Regards,

Ines.


2014-02-05 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>:

>  Hello Ines:
>
>
>
> This is a draft that was initially at 6LoWPAN, but the WG was in flux and
> people at ROLL asked the authors to revive the draft so we presented it
> there.
>
> It is related to ROLL in that it enables routing fragments but still it is
> a bit farfetched, unless ROLL recharters in that direction in the future.
>
> We presented the work at 6lo, but there was a mitigated reception.
>
> Carsten in particular opposed the work, and complained that it moved
> places, plus has doubts about the retry mechanism.
>
>
>
> Would you wish ROLL to continue that work?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Ines Robles [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* jeudi 23 janvier 2014 23:44
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui (johui)
> *Cc:* Michael Richardson; roll
> *Subject:* Intention for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags
>
>
>
> Hi Pascal and Jonathan,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for draft-thubert-roll-forwarding-frags-02,
>
>
>
> Abstract:
>
>
>
> In order to be routed, a fragmented packet must be reassembled at
>   every hop of a multihop link where lower layer fragmentation occurs.
>   Considering that the IPv6 minimum MTU is 1280 bytes and that an an
>   802.15.4 frame can have a payload limited to 74 bytes in the worst
>   case, a packet might end up fragmented into as many as 18 fragments
>   at the 6LoWPAN shim layer.  If a single one of those fragments is
>   lost in transmission, all fragments must be resent, further
>   contributing to the congestion that might have caused the initial
>   packet loss.  This draft introduces a simple protocol to forward and
>   recover individual fragments that might be lost over multiple hops
>   between 6LoWPAN endpoints.
>
>
>
> We would like to know please how you see that this draft is aligned with
> the roll charter,
>
> it seems that the intention is in this thread:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07784.html, is that
> correct? do you have some additional information for intention?
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
>
> Michael and Ines.
>