IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets

Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <qinwang6top@yahoo.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 78D8F1A001D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.271
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 N7DTOA8V9F9c for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA511A0032 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.138.100.103] by nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Apr 2014 00:19:19 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.245] by tm102.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Apr 2014 00:19:19 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1059.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Apr 2014 00:19:19 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 689948.76844.bm@omp1059.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 68230 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Apr 2014 00:19:19 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1397607559; bh=foff5CJJf5PTfugr1qPcpqEdMV/ZpQv2VlWU9oy+84Q=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Z/yTo0tOL1leKde9krvEfRQCHw2jMV5m4nOX+urJ4wLtq94XEosd4ZILcO/iImdOKidEYf5hKki2G07Wr6l/g5tmnjsYn/iyCkBnuNP/S2kRNpf3fLk1JVv20HSuyLAaRA7Uv0RD6a8HBHKDQCCy3fINrdevnP56i9dV6VoxU98=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cmGnJH6v+MxZVYsbDS2xusPKodci7p6v8woeDq0PNjpEKYN1UwljTIFJ6/0a3DuwTs56HLEdTyXoX2uqHXzoOgXzAEZDuTJmEMtYnr9kCmKdPk2YO7KKRM8TLscwvHSWD2Tk6wot6xo8XMi9oXxeY6yKPomzazQTB8aiEqXeyC8=;
X-YMail-OSG: UdnOJDQVM1k.W5HqpnUExvHA5a.ZUDPMPNAtOgaqbh5onI8 h9KBrHpSB3f2ILr51etDMxk1yrsdhEqEGppwm1yJpoKD9szWN.lF.ms2KekS fv4.bZ0RPWKjpAAdSLubAUrDxtuu49RKyxD.7Vh5vrAsotWMwHSdJ8SeUBeS Li0TMQ2dhzHmzyrjVDbShj5yCcRfc4RQDUFfCQt9A0xtPe.bEwru25oZ9too HlPxEWos0M2zQrQrva6bhXXPpEVoMn4BZnyKG1S2wef6bwuU0MZMZeABpL_Q jT6fi0OBUxVTrbkj2qhqQJbYZ66kUl_tCX4yFgicn86DGqgXm6v44WmLtmRk df.r0JV1V_ypaYG8O32FFIAOVjnRCzD3WD..ncr5kW2mBb4Kr7yEbektqgQs fROPYq5Mp48LOkAdToZbhegXxKLon.gzBXJ3S5ox5b591Ly9aVW1xRwgrLhd X0y6AD4SB_4nfs7tvqZL.V5RTviH8FGDvLgNyjxc5N4rNQN3QeJr6CLpPjDP 6GUyVmerjWkzIsIR3YLHVuHqMm3jWsh95sdQvqSIgM3k9av4DUlqVdjc93rA -
Received: from [123.124.147.29] by web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:19:19 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, KzEKClFpbgpPbiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIEFwcmlsIDE2LCAyMDE0IDE6NDcgQU0sIFByb2YuIERpZWdvIER1am92bmUgPGRpZWdvLmR1am92bmVAbWFpbC51ZHAuY2w.IHdyb3RlOgogCisxICEKCgoKCjIwMTQtMDQtMTUgMTI6MjUgR01ULTAzOjAwIFRvbSBQaGlubmV5IDx0b20ucGhpbm5leUBjb3gubmV0PjoKCisxIGZvciBzdXJlLiBUaGUgZmxvdyBsYWJlbCBoYXMgYWx3YXlzIGJlZW4gdGhlIHByZWZlcmFibGUgbWV0aG9kIGZvciBtZSwgYW5kIEkgc3VzcGVjdCBmb3Igb3RoZXJzIHdpdGgga25vd2xlZGdlIG8BMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.185.657
References: <534D4F7A.3040605@cox.net> <CAH7SZV9WeQmuaHvUZ35_ySL4ak4+SDfbmpMbXgqQL+C833sTGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1397607559.92815.YahooMailNeo@web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:19:19 -0700
From: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>
To: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>, Tom Phinney <tom.phinney@cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAH7SZV9WeQmuaHvUZ35_ySL4ak4+SDfbmpMbXgqQL+C833sTGw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1265908415-178116490-1397607559=:92815"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/TSMXvTkY3eEdUcAjzRKn331zYrs
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:02:45 -0700
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6tisch] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com>, 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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:19:28 -0000

+1

Qin
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:47 AM, Prof. Diego Dujovne <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> wrote:
 
+1 !




2014-04-15 12:25 GMT-03:00 Tom Phinney <tom.phinney@cox.net>:

+1 for sure. The flow label has always been the preferable method for me, and I suspect for others with knowledge of how it is used in ISA100.11a.
>===
>
>
>On 2014.04.15 07:25, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>
>Dear all:
>> 
>>As some of you remember, the RPL specification has changed over time WRT to the location of the information that RPL places in the data packets. We started with the flow label but these were the days when what became RFC 6437 was being defined at 6MAN, so we shied away and defined the HbH technique that is now specified as RFC 6553. 
>> 
>>We’ll note that the RPL option defined in RFC 6553 takes 6 octets, and with the HbH hdr we end up with 8 extra octets. An extra IP-in-IP encapsulation is required on top of that unless both endpoints are in the same RPL domain. All this overhead may be acceptable when power is available and the PHY allows for larger frames, but in traditional battery-operated 15.4 with ~ 80 bytes usable per frame, my experience from integrating 6LoWPAN HC with ISA100.11a says that all these extra bytes will be on the way of the 6TiSCH adoption. 
>> 
>>Still, both RFC 6550 and RFC 6552 are designed to allow for an alternate technique and in particular for the use of the flow label, as is elaborated in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-flow-label-02 . Using the flow label reduces the cost of the RPL information dramatically, down to a level that is probably acceptable for the target SDOs.
>> 
>>So my plan for now is to move the flow label draft to 6MAN and prepare for a hot season, and I’m looking for support from both 6TiSCH and ROLL to back me up from the start.  Yes, you can help! 
>> 
>>Please +1 if you agree we need this work to happen, and/or provide any suggestion.
>> 
>>Cheers,
>> 
>>Pascal
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch 
>
>_______________________________________________
>6tisch mailing list
>6tisch@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>


-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125


_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email