I posed this question earlier, but it seems to have been lost in the thread discussing UDP checksums. I'd like to know if this really is important, or if there is some obvious answer that I am missing... (HC1G as explained to me is the ability to compress the address field for a non-link-local IPv6 address when transmitting - something that has not been defined by 6lowpan yet and we are making chartering decisions on).
Mark Townsley wrote: > It would seem to me that HC1G would be very important to understanding > how ROLL is going to work. If you are routing between subnets at L3, > then by definition you cannot be using link-local addressing on them. > So, either ROLL is stuck with 128-bit addresses in data packets, or we > figure out how to compress global addresses. Or, am I missing something > obvious? If we have accepted that routing lowpan subnets means using a non-link-local address, which means using a globally unique address, which finally means a 128 bit address field in all lowpan data packets, then we of course do not need to define how to compress global addresses. But, I'd like to know if that decision has been made, or if there is some other solution. Thanks, - Mark _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list 6lowpan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
