[Roll] [roll] #175 (routing-dispatch): processing of multiple SRH-6LoRH

"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sat, 30 April 2016 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF7A12D107 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2w3KCnRwF9y for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 07:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36AC612B01F for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 07:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:59270 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1awVr8-0006rz-9P; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 07:26:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:26:50 -0000
X-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/175
Message-ID: <069.a8e9963845fc40f76210245527ede235@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 175
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, roll@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/EbYF9KNFlA8MhvXTuqJRABPM4RY>
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: [Roll] [roll] #175 (routing-dispatch): processing of multiple SRH-6LoRH
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:26:53 -0000

#175: processing of multiple SRH-6LoRH

 When A receives the packet it must remove the first address in the SRH
 which is self.

 As illustrated A pops B’s compressed address from the next header (the
 type 3) and coalesces that in the first (type 4) to get the full address
 of B.
 If we had removed the type 4 then the first SRH would have been the type 3
 and the prefix would be lost.

 A single sentence would help to explain that The compression of B's
 address needs some bytes from A..

 Reporter:  consultancy@vanderstok.org  |      Owner:  Pascal Thubert
     Type:  enhancement                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                       |  Milestone:
Component:  routing-dispatch            |    Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document       |   Keywords:

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/175>
roll <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>