Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03

Michael Richardson <> Sat, 16 August 2014 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B441A0406; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.959
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONpAKBMD8SwU; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3721A0404; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39E320029; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:10:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id 75DA763AC9; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9A6638D6; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD842D3E864@xmb-rcd-x01>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
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: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:07:47 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
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: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:07:50 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <> wrote:
    > And my conclusion to 6MAN is that the changes of rules that are
    > requested in the draft are useful whether or not people are willing to
    > use the flow label as the transport for the RPL option inside the RPL
    > domain. Since this is the question on the table for 6MAN, I think that
    > the answer is now clearly a yes.

Should we split the issue up?
1) blessing/permission/exception to reset flow label within an LLN,
   (which would include simply setting it to zero so it can be compressed

2) a document on how to compress 6553 HbH into ?flow-label vs ?6lo-HC.

   I am not enthusiastic about multiple ways.
   We will have an existing problem of figuring out 6553 vs new-way,
   and also noting that some nodes will needed to continue to speak 6553
   on some links anyway (backhaul ethernet).

    >> it mentions ISA100.11a only in the introduction.)

My understanding is that ISA100.11a uses the flow label to pick a path,
but not in a way that involves rewritting it on each hop in the LLN.
Please correct me if I'm wrong; it seems that document (1) is needed to
retro-actively bless ISA100.11a usage :-)

[I'm writing this on a rainy Saturday afternoon, at a friend's house,
playing 1st Ed AD&D, and my two characters are unconcious... so when I use
the term "bless"... you'll understand the context]

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-