IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
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 AC58821F8746 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ov3RB1RfG1pK for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D796321F8744 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=38150; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1350578602; x=1351788202; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=zOVMwfwRsf8P+BsaLKcwglkXBerJxEx4l0TztiKtID0=; b=jkB2OJxdLEaMVdPeTJcusHhb1anXrEDQd7L6AXy0LTvIxwYQ5QOK71/z JdlBc0g95CLEXMEAfluYaKivpEgOZJj0Qd+AP32mGal0pqyTyihbIy1c3 C1NX0wt++oobpghASMcdM5661BaABwA/QjCOb3NA7wedtpe1N7gCU6hM+ 8=;
X-Files: image001.jpg : 20186
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAH0xgFCtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFgkq1JAGIXoEIgiIBBAUNARIIATsBHQQBJQEBAQIIFQkFEAEDCQIMFAsHAQQSAQYCBgwIh2ILmzaBK6A8BItuhUhgA5ANAVGGIYIoiwyBa4JvgWM0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,608,1344211200"; d="jpg'145?scan'145,208,217,145"; a="133098091"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2012 16:43:07 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9IGh7FV020974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:43:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.23]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:43:07 -0500
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: using the flow label instead of hop by hop
Thread-Index: Ac2tT14B78zttzpFSgOnw7I7S2GAIw==
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:43:06 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:42:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221CB0DA@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.254.53.121]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19284.002
x-tm-as-result: No--50.253700-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD8221CB0DAxmbrcdx01ciscoc_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Roll] using the flow label instead of hop by hop
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 18 Oct 2012 16:43:23 -0000

Hi

When I started this draft, we had a series of chats with Brian Carpenter and apparently reached a gentleman agreement that it was doable within the RPL domain to use the flow label and avoid the Hop by Hop option.

I published http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-roll-flow-label-01 based on that discussion but did not get news from the group since then.

This technique has a number of advantages, in particular
-it saves extra bytes for the RPL option and the HbH header.
-it also avoids the prescribed tunneling within the RPL domain for packets from the outside.
- it has an optimized compression with 6LoWPAN.

Is there interest in the group to continue? If so I'd be glad to have some discussion time at the next meeting.

Cheers,



Pascal Thubert
IPv6 Engineering

pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>
Phone :+33 497 23 26 34
Mobile :+33 619 98 29 85


Cisco Systems
Village d'Entreprises Green Side bat. T3
400, Avenue Roumanille
06410 Biot - Sophia Antipolis
France
Cisco.com<http://www.cisco.com/global/FR/>

[Description: Description: http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/vertical04.jpg]

For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email