What exactly are they using the tunneling for, and is it envisioned for a substantial amount of traffic? Enough that warrants a new compression mode?
- Mark On 7/6/10 1:51 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Zach: > > You're right. > It would make sense to make the slight update to compress when the inner > and outer source or destination are identical. > I do not think that this would cause any trouble with the last call that > passed already, would it? > What about making that change and pushing to IESG? > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Zach Shelby >> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:49 PM >> To: 6lowpan >> Subject: [6lowpan] IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling (RFC2473) >> >> Both of the new 6man drafts needed by RPL are requiring the use of > RFC2473 >> IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling. I like IPv6 tunneling and all, but has anyone > thought >> out how this is going to work over a 6LoWPAN with HC? >> >> Zach >> >> -- >> Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. >> http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" >> http://6lowpan.net - My book "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet" >> Mobile: +358 40 7796297 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
