Re: [Roll] Source Routing Header Format

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel:

I think the aim is to have a basic header that looks like RH0 with a
record route. Then 6LoWPAN can work on compressing it using 6LowpAN
techniques. 
And we'll certainly commission more work to have our own labeling
system. But none of this should hold our base spec whatsoever!

cheers,
 
Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of
> Daniel Gavelle
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:54 PM
> To: ROLL WG
> Subject: Re: [Roll] Source Routing Header Format
> 
> All,
> 
> Whichever source routing header we use, it will be good if we don't
need to
> carry the full IPv6 address of each hop.
> 
> This is especially important when using 6LowPAN.  If we don't compress
the
> addresses, it won't take many hops before the routing header overflows
the
> first 6LowPAN fragment.
> 
> Daniel.
> 
> 
> Popa, Daniel wrote:
> > Pascal,
> >
> > +1. It seems a good starting point.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
> >> Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:36 AM
> >> To: JP Vasseur; JeongGil Ko (John)
> >> Cc: ROLL WG
> >> Subject: 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Roll mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Roll mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> > _______________________________________________
> > Roll mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> >
> 
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Daniel Gavelle, Software Engineer
> Tel: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Jennic Ltd, Furnival Street, Sheffield, S1 4QT, UK Comp Reg No:
3191371
> Registered In England http://www.jennic.com
> __________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll