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

Richard Kelsey <> Tue, 26 August 2014 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6D71A0252; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xX7XKxzfcmVC; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5920B1A8769; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.17; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:02:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.017; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:02:28 +0000
From: Richard Kelsey <>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
Thread-Topic: [Roll] [6lo] WGLC for draft-thubert-6man-flow-label-for-rpl-03
Thread-Index: Ac++CEw2ncG58gG1qkm9oMVdmX2ItgAdxngAAICihoAAOXaTGA==
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:02:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03152A99FF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199003)(377454003)(51704005)(189002)(66066001)(19580405001)(2656002)(99286002)(4396001)(19580395003)(83322001)(76176999)(80022001)(95666004)(81342001)(64706001)(21056001)(85852003)(87936001)(50986999)(99396002)(90102001)(106356001)(105586002)(31966008)(33646002)(79102001)(230783001)(20776003)(107046002)(76482001)(81542001)(74662001)(74502001)(83072002)(85306004)(74316001)(46102001)(92566001)(76576001)(108616004)(86362001)(101416001)(77982001)(54356999)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR07MB610;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, Ines Robles <>, 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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:03:03 -0000

> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) []
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:30 PM
> I understand, Brian:
> It makes sense to propose a generic rule and try it on the real
> world. But it is not surprising that such a bold approach fails to
> be universal when confronted to the real world.  To be very clear on
> the need for 6MAN to take our responsibilities, I added text to
> clarify that 6437 as of today is dramatically counterproductive for
> the development of IPv6 in LLNs.


Hold on a second.  First of all, not everyone doing IPv6 in LLNs
is using RPL.  Second of all, not everyone using RPL in LLNs is
particularly hindered by the overhead of using RFC 6553.  And finally,
Carsten's suggested 6lo encoding of the RPL Option arguably has
better properties than using the flow label and is definitely not
"dramatically" worse.

Personally, I think using the flow label in this way is a very bad
idea.  The games that are played within an LLN to make IPv6 work there
need to be invisible to the rest of the Internet.  Universal rules
are what its all about.

                               -Richard Kelsey