Re: [Roll] processing of multiple SRH-6LoRH

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 27 April 2016 12:34 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 4112312B057 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-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 kp6gQivk2MIu for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:34:37 -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 7EED712D110 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFBB2009E; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B695663755; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:34:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5e93d811225e4a9bab5840a750012eb1@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <3835.1461332920@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5e93d811225e4a9bab5840a750012eb1@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:34:35 -0400
Message-ID: <32449.1461760475@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/gt_nRcmmADOTKp5CQrMSPtpZLLo>
Cc: "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Roll] processing of multiple SRH-6LoRH
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:34:41 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>; wrote:
    > When A receives the packet it must remove the first address in the SRH which
    > is self.

    > As illustrated A pops B’s compressed address from the next header (the type
    > 3) and coalesces that in the first (type 4) to get the full address of B.

    >> Why not just drop the current 6loRH here and have fewer bytes, period?

    > If we had removed the type 4 then the first SRH would have been the type 3
    > and the prefix would be lost.

okay, right, I get it.  The compression of B's address needs some bytes from A.
A single sentence to explain that would help.

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