IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl> Tue, 15 April 2014 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821C41A02E3 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 PEMDTb7y_NTx for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f173.google.com (mail-we0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E700F1A01DC for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w61so9948258wes.32 for <roll@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lZ5v0ptBeaDmI5h25QqxOyqMt4bWrhT/AMSVHpNDUyQ=; b=CxEgAV5oLxWFeWqiFUyo+Su9VeRFMaPCdgGf6UDDvViOsOxdGVCI1UfmoQXyZrhIG+ JQlz7ZKdL+oIs8+6b7ojrN/nYHcSAPYZK56AvEXxUBI8zmG9n8ZNgnMH7ow/CSlcAGRU 8/etA33DR/BG7tPHBha/FxaemHC90EExtoBPLQ/V+1eF8uSdFxWT/+bZvJ87ltke5X5y T9Y9Bb4grAwLU6mC1iREcPkLMY7XAvH8Q0kfdasg5b3jL0fDXzENB/4VQDw4eAVZBxDy ucoadowOLIZESbA5SgNM+VqliyeHF/kezXxjL9LsG/JkAmhGdeHdVQwci+Hs537vA1SO knOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnKAbUeOnpsfR4GCeN0TAaf9kpxe3YvtvxkLCDrvpo4WIec7Idgv3wHS3XOEJ5qp45iCPrI
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.147 with SMTP id hk19mr15406281wib.42.1397583129341; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.57.82 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <534D4F7A.3040605@cox.net>
References: <534D4F7A.3040605@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:32:09 -0300
Message-ID: <CAH7SZV9WeQmuaHvUZ35_ySL4ak4+SDfbmpMbXgqQL+C833sTGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Prof. Diego Dujovne" <diego.dujovne@mail.udp.cl>
To: Tom Phinney <tom.phinney@cox.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba5b5f8025104f7182d45"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/b7_UEB-R4za1qTZA4kpPhSufSx8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:11:26 -0700
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:32:17 -0000

+1 !


2014-04-15 12:25 GMT-03:00 Tom Phinney <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 07:25, 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.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list6tisch@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>


-- 
DIEGO DUJOVNE
Académico Escuela de Ingeniería en Informática y Telecomunicaciones
Facultad de Ingeniería UDP
www.ingenieria.udp.cl
(56 2) 676 8125

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email