Hey Rahul, On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:25:19PM +0530, Rahul Jadhav wrote: > > > > But with the addition of a proper > > > > 6lowpan fragmentation, we dropped that functionality. > > > > > > [RJ] 6lo frag is not a good option to use and should be avoided as far as > > > possible. > > > > Is this your personal opinion or some IETF consensus? > > > [RJ] In IETF98, Pascal had presented the problem stmts related to 6lo > fragmentation and post-session there was a discussion ( > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/current/msg02355.html). > Also my experience with regards to 6lo frag also points to problems similar > to what were mentioned during that session.
Thanks for the pointer.
> > I agree that fragmented ICMPv6 messages are somewhat pointless, but to
> > rely on IPv6 fragmentation for link layers that do not support the minimum
> > MTU for IPv6 and do not offer fragmentation (like IEEE 802.15.4) it still
> > seems to be the best choice to me.
> > Can you elaborate a bit?
>
> [RJ] i think i didnt appropriately word my stmts. I never suggested to not
> support or disable 6lo fragmentation. In my experiment i have disabled it
> just to check if there are any reasons why RIOT should result in 6lo
> fragmentation. I found this (DAO) case and thought, may be, this is not a
> good candidate to result in 6lo frag and can be avoided and hence the mail.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes absolutely sense - and I agree that
fragmented DAOs are not a good idea.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
fs_dprintk (FS_DEBUG_INIT, "Ha! Initialized OK!\n");
linux-2.6.6/drivers/atm/firestream.c
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
