Yes, Pascal. What you are going to say is correct! I agree +1
Tengfei On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthub...@cisco.com> wrote: > I see, and yes, that is misleading. > > > > I need to change that to say the reference to the first is the source of > the packet and then the reference for each entry is the previous one when > uncompressed (not the first as you suggest but, the one just before it). > > So you uncompress an address and it becomes reference to the next that you > uncompress, etc… I will raise an ticket. . You’ll find that the algorithm > in “5.4. Popping Headers” decodes exactly that (well hopefully). > > > > Do we agree? > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* Tengfei Chang [mailto:tengfei.ch...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* mardi 26 janvier 2016 17:56 > *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* 6tisch@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Compression Reference and Coalescence > > > > Nice to hear that's what you intended to do! > > > > In the beginning of section 4.3: > > ... > > > > Once the address of the source of the packet is determined, it > > becomes the reference for the compression of the addresses that are > > located in compressed RH3 headers that are present inside the IP-in- > > IP encapsulation in the uncompressed form. > > ... > > > When I am understanding the sentence, I am feeling like all the > compression of addresses in RH3 will be compressed according to source > address in IPinIP, which only the first 8 bytes can be elided. > > > > If agree with the reasonable one, it should be the first address in first > RH3 is compressed according to the source address in IPinIP. > > Then, all rest address in RH3 will be compressed according to the first > address in RH3. > > > > Make sense? > > Tengfei > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < > pthub...@cisco.com> wrote: > > 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
