If you are purposefully breaking existing Standards Track specifications (which is what it sounds like you are doing) in order to "not require IP in IP tunneling" (a local optimization), you probably won't get much sympathy here. Certainly not from me!
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
