IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 14 August 2014 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 5ED4F1A0998; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 xLAAeJD6mhC2; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D571A0992; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 01:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2128; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408006475; x=1409216075; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=o2qoFD+nZJBPHxj/SiAb5gvj8WcUNST3IF9UFp7IZV0=; b=NPiGWTq8Q8JIpmwkYaTow+KZKY9i7nA01f5pqQ3ZWPqWFxSPUPQicHgr +GWL6iWjWg3+R8UdM0FfEnzBb20k9i7RwBfZMsOX9jokp+HvcEDTw5oeB n8XtwBM/gwaSe2CfjaGbAmzFgKSfXiGwA9CHrjGV8b4yzLvpXnmCRjaRn U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnUFAIJ47FOtJA2M/2dsb2JhbABagw1SVwTNYQqHSAGBFRZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBawsMBAIBCA4DBAEBAQodBycLFAkIAgQOBQgTiCcNxXwTBI5+HTEHBoMpgR0FimOGOqAag1xsgUg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,862,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="69171339"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2014 08:54:34 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7E8sYmP005199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:54:34 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.56]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 03:54:33 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
Thread-Index: AQHPty/HkIDTIP3DQEeJJU36r1KfRZvPyktw
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:54:33 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:54:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E1E4@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
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> <53EAA58D.4060401@gmail.com> <4C8FA2D5-7FD5-40A0-9D98-081BEC6A0480@tzi.org> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3BED8@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> <E66DB157-B1C2-4BA4-B889-A15A6427DA3E@cs.stanford.edu> <0B8D48F9-8AAE-49F7-A2FA-A58963088814@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0B8D48F9-8AAE-49F7-A2FA-A58963088814@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.22.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/LkXwZ1iDbA_NoC8XJ2sKqhTAes0
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] 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 08:54:43 -0000

Agreed, Ralph.

The work at 6lo would result in a one-to-one equivalence between a compressed and an uncompressed packet, including the case where the packet has a RPL option, or a RH. The flow label draft makes equivalent a packet with a 0 flow label and a RPL option, and a packet with a flow label set as indicated, so it is effectively another form of compression that is applicable in any RPL domain, but only compresses the RPL option.

If the 6lo work concludes as an RFC, it should recommend to prefer the 6lo way against the flow label way.

Cheers,

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: mercredi 13 août 2014 21:50
> To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks
> Cc: Ines Robles; 6man WG; 6lo@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [6lo] [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:11 PM 8/13/14, Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The need for this work was agreed at ROLL. We need a better solution
> than available, for application in RPL domains, that are often but not
> necessarily congruent with 6LowPAN domains.
> >
> > This seems to me to be the strong technical argument in favor of the draft.
> While Carsten's approach seems better technically, it only works for
> 6lowpan, and RPL should be independent of the underlying link layer.
> 
> Could we consider Carsten's approach a compression mechanism for the RPL
> information options, rather than a replacement, thereby allowing a one-to-
> one translation between compressed mode on 6lowpan networks and
> uncompressed mode in other networks?
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> >
> > Phil
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > Roll@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email