Hello Tengfei: The draft is meant to express exactly what your reasonable case shows. There is an example of that in appendix. What exactly did I write improperly that it can be understood otherwise?
Take care ; Pascal From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tengfei Chang Sent: lundi 25 janvier 2016 12:00 To: 6tisch@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org Subject: [6lo] Compression Reference and Coalescence Dear all, I have some concern on the compression Reference and Coalescence. In the 6lorh draft, all the hops in RH3 are compressed according to the compression reference (the source address, root usually). And when doing Coalescence, the process is kind of like taking the first address in first RH3 as the reference. The inconsistency between compression reference and Coalescense may waste some bytes in some cases. For example: A packet is issued by root with a compressed RH3 along an A->B->C->D source route path. The nodes address are: root: bbbb::0000:0000:0000:0001 node A: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0001 node B: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0002 node C: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0003 node D: bbbb::1111:2222:3333:0004 According to the 6lorh draft: all hops in RH3 will be compressed according to reference, which is the root. The Packet received by node A is: ---------------------------- Type 3 RH3-6LoRH Size = 2 1111 2222 3333 0001 1111 2222 3333 0002 1111 2222 3333 0003 And which maybe more reasonable packet would be like : ---------------------------- Type 3 RH3-6LoRH Size = 0 1111 2222 3333 0001 Type 0 RH3-6LoRH Size = 1 02 03 Which means the first hop in first RH3 entry is compressed according to the reference(which is the root in this case) and the rest hops are compressed according to the first hop in first RH3 entry. For me, this compression way is more consistent with the way when doing coalescence. What do you think? Tengfei
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
