IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Eliding mechanism in 6550

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 29 September 2019 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 317D71200A1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 YqzjlXOodWVm for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B890120025 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3774E3897C for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC44373 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:30:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BM1PR01MB2612A9D3C37CD5D009626CCFA9810@BM1PR01MB2612.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <BM1PR01MB2612A9D3C37CD5D009626CCFA9810@BM1PR01MB2612.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:30:50 -0400
Message-ID: <28599.1569796250@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/YFU5Fujzn_0M9-OTzUuQcc-vdAw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Eliding mechanism in 6550
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:30:55 -0000

Rahul Jadhav <nyrahul@outlook.com> wrote:
    > During the interim Pascal/Michael suggested the use of counter to track
    > the freshness of the Config Option. This could further extend to track
    > MOPex and CAP options freshness.

    > The suggestion was to use the reserved bits in the base DIO message for such a counter.

Yup.

    > I was wondering if the DODAGID in the DIO could also be elided under
    > the same guise? Basically the point is to elide all the "static"
    > information which rarely changes.

    > Clearly this has issues in multi-DODAG networks but it is possible to
    > handle such issues. Considering that this directly results in 16 bytes
    > savings per DIO multicast message, do you think it is worth the effort
    > or if there are other issues?

My question is what are the sizes of the DIOs, and how close are we to
fragmentation already?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email