Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <> Tue, 26 August 2014 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1505E1A87E3; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZo-Lw_ci-Xj; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3AC1A87E1; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409084337; x=1410293937; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gShpDtW+2BWsJIdJ2Xn2dMstXfHQKA/nzEok5ixEgT0=; b=fo+5xdJzrKs2Gll+PTr1v2t0epzOwROew966LJKBF69E9iN/44OIXmM2 XfpNK4m4rW4vz56IrVReYFqirkxFD1A8KNTalkxVIa/RBLqbyXAj23Si0 RUKvpOclmWZGnDlwCRpzct2cIbFsUraJIm66/0lPt1t3+UpYrvh7pc7R/ Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AigFAM7q/FOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgw1TV8xTCodMAYEXFneEAwEBAQMBAQEBawsQAgEIFQEwJwslAgQOBYg6CA2/QhMEjxkzB4MvgR0FimyGQYsnlRSDXmyCTwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,406,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="350454121"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 20:18:57 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QKIuoa026066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:18:56 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:18:56 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
To: Richard Kelsey <>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] [Roll] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
Thread-Index: AQHPwWjiidypJfPYN0WvEDAQ9LxuP5vjUxoi
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:18:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 6man WG <>, Michael Richardson <>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, Ines Robles <>, " WG" <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:18:59 -0000


Maybe you should read the draft.

I removed all references to my proposal of how to use the Flow label for RPL.

What the 6MAN draft is now asking is only the right to manipulate a flow label in the LLN, RPL or not RPL, be it only to reset it to zero so as to elide it.

The Idea to propose a 6lowpan compression is actually from Laurent and I was the first on the ML to support it.


Le 26 août 2014 à 22:04, "Richard Kelsey" <> a écrit :

>> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) []
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:30 PM
>> I understand, Brian:
>> It makes sense to propose a generic rule and try it on the real
>> world. But it is not surprising that such a bold approach fails to
>> be universal when confronted to the real world.  To be very clear on
>> the need for 6MAN to take our responsibilities, I added text to
>> clarify that 6437 as of today is dramatically counterproductive for
>> the development of IPv6 in LLNs.
> Pascal,
> Hold on a second.  First of all, not everyone doing IPv6 in LLNs
> is using RPL.  Second of all, not everyone using RPL in LLNs is
> particularly hindered by the overhead of using RFC 6553.  And finally,
> Carsten's suggested 6lo encoding of the RPL Option arguably has
> better properties than using the flow label and is definitely not
> "dramatically" worse.
> Personally, I think using the flow label in this way is a very bad
> idea.  The games that are played within an LLN to make IPv6 work there
> need to be invisible to the rest of the Internet.  Universal rules
> are what its all about.
>                               -Richard Kelsey
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list