Le 15 sept. 2010 à 04:35, Erik Nordmark a écrit : > ... Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need > *before* the IP header? > That avoids the overhead.
In www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12204, I essentially proposed that (quote below). > The downside is that you need a new code point (for demux) in the different > layer2s that you want to run this on. If this header could be made mandatory for RPL interfaces, this wouldn't even be necessary. > But it seems a lot simpler than trying to overload some existing IPv6 header > field. Full agreement. Regards, RD QUOTE: <<< De : Rémi Després <remi.desp...@free.fr> > Date : 12 août 2010 14:54:46 HAEC > ... >> There is certainly a strong benefit in Low Power Lossy Networks to make >> the flow label mutable. > > How strong the benefit isn't clear to me. > Since RPL networks are recognized as such by hosts, it seems easy to add a > short field, just before the IP header, to contain whatever is useful for > this kind of network. > Mixing functions with those of FLs would thus be avoided. >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
