Re: [Roll] CmprI and CmprE in SRH
Jonathan Hui <jonhui@cisco.com> Thu, 22 December 2011 02:29 UTC
Return-Path: <jonhui@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C81C11E8096 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:29:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXb2LK-cLe1W for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:29:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F3811E808C for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:29:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jonhui@cisco.com; l=690; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1324520954; x=1325730554; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RiMlRTIUo62r/niBcik3lZfGpX6Wt/ZPBbl0NOt5wh4=; b=XT1Wo9CAvhy/TRwn2/Up0g9uBXTUS99NCvMeMPcdetVGd1iYzLVTpBh4 /n29pa1jzWo44fZDXao4gzmgCdepvxA82TGvLLcAXcuhK6wZkEbOBEK06 a+JJ0IH7QK9IQIJu0AQSHiTe9WA5ky42jtX7QpeJ4Q197fFrz7yg2tkLq Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAJSV8k6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABCDqwZgQWBcgEBAQMBEgEnPwULC0ZXBjWHWJkNAZ4zglWIV2MEiDeIb4NZkXxY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,391,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="20297817"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2011 02:29:12 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn2-370.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-370.cisco.com [10.21.113.114]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBM2TCT2014373; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:29:12 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Jonathan Hui <jonhui@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <885849737.729755.1324516551604.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:29:12 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4894235A-FC54-445A-B2FF-033B9CA3C997@cisco.com>
References: <885849737.729755.1324516551604.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] CmprI and CmprE in SRH
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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, 22 Dec 2011 02:29:15 -0000
On Dec 21, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Mukul Goyal wrote: > I think this was probably discussed earlier in your discussions with area director. But I was wondering if you could clarify again why do we need separate CmprI and CmprE? I think the last element in the Address vector specifies the ultimate destination (reachable using SRH) of the packet. Why would that destination need a separate number of elided prefix octets? In the case that a RPL routing domain is used as a transit network. It is important to support the case where the SRH only specifies a subset of the path (see the 3 different cases in the image on page 5 of the draft. -- Jonathan Hui
- [Roll] CmprI and CmprE in SRH Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] CmprI and CmprE in SRH Jonathan Hui
- Re: [Roll] CmprI and CmprE in SRH Mukul Goyal
- Re: [Roll] CmprI and CmprE in SRH Jonathan Hui