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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 14:27 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6AA1A0109; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.772
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CArxQJZQKJjn; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C6F1A00A3; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26668; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397744850; x=1398954450; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=MBd3FwT2RWr3j4hcCoBmh7PnIbLHJsuTuG2e1vyih1Y=; b=bojLW+nOY3uS6yL1qEidM2VBv3Dy49wz27rWy15e4Sq88PRpIUo+OGyt osnqzna0vwgplea7PioT+I54+EwPpA57d2U35P3g/XwAAd8YPijr8V/oK f24tuXG3ICQ7Q+0v4xSUa552VQolc4PUu6+iruLyVbYuFHEyzKR5plqjg o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,879,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="36636944"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2014 14:27:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com []) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3HERTuk029254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:27:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:27:29 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6tisch] [Roll] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets
Thread-Index: AQHPWhL++1GeHuUHZ0GcdgYXmHZiqZsV2/DA
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:27:29 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:27:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842605A64@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <534D4F7A.3040605@cox.net> <CAH7SZV9WeQmuaHvUZ35_ySL4ak4+SDfbmpMbXgqQL+C833sTGw@mail.gmail.com> <1397607559.92815.YahooMailNeo@web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAP+sJUfx6=-22+A_=M_v3iSf6piGeyHkF2_BPm2ntbWnCEhTSw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMsDxWRgNoWdaRaZz=tOuWQ+ucCfFE7EnHxbbjBvBR64xoF_dQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMsDxWRgNoWdaRaZz=tOuWQ+ucCfFE7EnHxbbjBvBR64xoF_dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842605A64xmbrcdx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/WMYIrIZBG6dbko6NAod79i-EdPo
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, roll <roll@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: [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: 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, 17 Apr 2014 14:27:38 -0000

Dear all;

Considering the support we have at 6TiSCH and ROLL for the work, I published draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-00.txt to the 6MAN WG.
The main discussion is probably to confirm whether our proposed use of the flow label inside the RPL domain is compatible with the goals that are achieved by RFC6437. Let us continue the discussion there from now on.



From: xvilajosana@gmail.com [mailto:xvilajosana@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Xavier Vilajosana
Sent: jeudi 17 avril 2014 10:00
To: Ines Robles
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 6tisch@ietf.org; roll
Subject: Re: [6tisch] [Roll] Support of flow label to carry the RPL information in data packets

+1 I think this is more than needed. In addition RFC 6282 defines how header compression needs to be handled together with extension headers. I think this is not clear and leads to confusions (afecting already some wireshark dissectors). The use of flow label will solve several problems at once.


2014-04-16 22:44 GMT+02:00 Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com<mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>>:


2014-04-15 21:19 GMT-03:00 Qin Wang <qinwang6top@yahoo.com<mailto:qinwang6top@yahoo.com>>:

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

2014-04-15 12:25 GMT-03:00 Tom Phinney <tom.phinney@cox.net<mailto: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<tel:2014.04.15%2007>: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.




6tisch mailing list



6tisch mailing list

Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
(56 2) 676 8125<tel:%2856%202%29%20676%208125>

6tisch mailing list

Roll mailing list

6tisch mailing list