IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 14 August 2014 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 DB13B1A02DE; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 tIZJv_XQxYv6; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8A01A019C; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7EEiX31029395; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:44:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54890314.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.3.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE3E0ABC; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:44:32 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <17279.1408025812@sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:44:31 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 429720271.234956-2fc503f092895771aedbebfc3f6f0f15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <137E1FA2-4AFB-4E1F-99CC-84724C2D6B52@tzi.org>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D189A1@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <406B5D64-4F0E-4E71-BC60-A113FB367652@gmail.com> <46112F69-05F0-4E50-A808-287B06AE8E5F@cs.stanford.edu> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D1A9FA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <057EC9C6-07FF-409B-A3BC-3348A5F43AB3@gmail.com> <53E534E8.4050304@gmail.com> <F7618DE0-7217-46C2-93A1-CE050085E7AB@employees.org> <53E926EB.9000505@gmail.com> <CAP+sJUfDyNa=t=+C=QXy8MmvG9rAUxA0mTsXL7xSWAeLUR1qcQ@mail.gmail.com> <C95BA1B7-A7B7-43BD-8E23-8FFDB2DD79ED@tzi.org> <17279.1408025812@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/L2XVaHWsf_KPvFRIfMMSiNHeplg
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.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: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:44:45 -0000

> Is this something that fits into the 6lowpan adaptation header?

Yes.
The idea is that, instead of sending a dispatch [RFC4944 term] of 011X.XXXX with an RFC 6282 header followed by the hop-by-hop extension header containing an RFC 6553 option, you send
0100.01S0, one (S=0) or two bytes (S=1) of RPL information, and then the RFC 6282 header with the 011 replaced by the ORF bits, followed by what would be behind the hop-by-hop extension header.
Similar for the frag1 header (0100.01S1 then).

Since RFC 4944 and RFC 6282 are now being used by quite a few adaptation layers, I collectively refer to them as “6lo”.
So this will immediately be applicable to BTLE, Z-Wave, DECT ULE, 6lobac, 1901.2, NFC, etc.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email