Re: [Roll] Source Routing Header Format

Hi JP:

For the P2P, it appears that we'll need the record route piece as well.
But the record route does not preexist in IPv6 standards.

It is present in my early work on tree discovery, so in a somewhat
similar context of mobile routers forming networks: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header

One option to move forward could be to start from that draft and make it
a separate spec.

We'd cleanup the mobility/tunnel pieces  and make it fully agnostic to
routing protocols.

What does the group think?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of JP
> Vasseur
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:44 PM
> To: JeongGil Ko (John)
> Cc: ROLL WG
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Source Routing Header Format
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On May 7, 2010, at 8:24 AM, JeongGil Ko (John) wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Have we decided on what the routing header format will be for point-
> > to-point routing?
> > The last discussion that I remember concluded with "Let's do
something
> > like RH0 and do tag/labels for addressing".
> 
> Right, Jonathan agreed to take the ownership of the ticket: indeed the
> conclusion was RH0-like, staying within RPL domain to avoid security
issues.
> Labels may come next (separate ID).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> > Do we have anything else after that?
> >
> > -John
> >
> > ------
> > JeongGil Ko (John)
> > Ph.D. Student
> > Department of Computer Science
> > Johns Hopkins University
> > http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jgko
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > Roll@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll