Hi Thomas Since RPL protocol is intended to operate in networks with constrained devices and lossy, low-bandwidth links, there is a desire to not require IP-in-IP tunnelling that is usually used for inserting routing headers. This is detailed in the draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00 but I realize now this draft expired recently. Perhaps this can be revived as it is helps to improve the applicability of RPL protocol.
-Joseph -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:57 AM To: Reddy, Joseph Cc: Jonathan Hui; 'ipv6@ietf.org' Subject: Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft > In the most common usage of this header, the border router inserts a > source routing header with the full set of intermediate nodes before > forwarding it towards the destination within the RPL network. and then. > Yes, we do not use IP-in-IP tunneling and instead simply insert the RH > head= er in the packet. What specification are you following that says do this? Routing headers (as designed and specified) are inserted by an originating node (whether the original sender or a tunnel entry point). If you have a middle node insert this header to an existing packet, no suprise things are not going to work. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
