Re: [Roll] [6lo] Call for advice on the RFC 6553 6lo encoding

Carsten Bormann <> Wed, 15 October 2014 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D94F1A0410; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89zTj2Zyfc-j; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ECCB1A0406; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9F7xTUs015928; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:59:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C7B22EF; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:59:28 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:59:26 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 435052766.590471-204eef7c324752f9968f79ca199f6e52
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] Call for advice on the RFC 6553 6lo encoding
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:59:37 -0000

On 15 Oct 2014, at 09:52, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <> wrote:

> b) Conservative. RPL would only consume a very limited NHC space, at the expense of one extra octet in each packet.

No, that’s not how it [1] works.

There is no extra byte except if the R or F flags in the RPL Packet Information (RPI) are non-zero.

It appears to me that those flags are an infrequent occurrence, so the total expense in bytes sent should be near zero.  There *is* expense in code size (complexity), though.

I have not been able to obtain any real world numbers on the frequency of non-zero R bits in real life RPL traffic.
(I have no idea whether non-zero F bits actually exist in real life at all.)
Those would be questions that people with more RPL experience than I have can answer.

Grüße, Carsten