Yes, what I mean this:
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).
which you are going to say on the
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
en 6LoRH *) *. With this we’d
> support multiple encapsulations though I cannot see where we’d need it for
> now.
>
>
>
> Works?
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Tengfei Chang [mailto:tengfei.ch...@gmail.com]
>
s sense to place the RPI first if any, then the RH3 if
> any, then the 6LoRH.
>
>
>
> Would you wish that we impose an order to simplify the parsing?
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* 6tisch [mailto:6tisch-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Tengfei
> Chang
>
that?
Let me know if this is already discussed somewhere so I can refer to.
Thanks!
Regard,
Tengfei
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.ch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks all for the comments! Then we will use the recommended format
> (second one) on the plugtest!
wrote:
> As per 802.15.4-2015, the only time the Payload Termination IE is required
> is when both the Payload IE and Data Payload are present. Given that there
> is no payload following the 6P payload IE, the terminator may be omitted.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> On 18, Jan2016, at
gt; The advantages of the recommended approach are: one octet shorter for case
> of single subtype ID and 256 available subtype ID addresses for any length.
>
> Sincerely, Pat
>
> On 11, Jan2016, at 9:19, Tengfei Chang <tengfei.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Pat, all,
>
erefore, if 6tisch adopts the above recommendation, there would be no
> long or short types.
>
> Pat
>
> Pat Kinney
> *Kinney Consulting LLC*
> IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chair
> ISA100 co-chair, ISA100.20 chair
> O: +1.847.960.3715
> pat.kin...@kinneyconsultingllc.com
>
Dear all,
I have a question about the types of RPI 6LoRH. Please let me know if this
is a duplicate question.
In the draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00
>From figure 9 to figure 12 starting from page 13, it shows different
combination of I and K in RPI 6LoRH and
Dear Pascal,
Recently Jonathan and I are working on the implementation of new 6loRH
draft: draft-ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch-00. There are something in the draft
we are not that clear yet and we would like to ask. Following are the
question:
1. in section 4.2, second paragraph:
*One or more 6LoRHs
an IPv6 RH…
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Tengfei Chang [mailto:tengfei.ch...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* mercredi 6 janvier 2016 16:43
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* 6tisch@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org
> *
not sure but seems more reasonable to
be 1)
Maybe those annexes in 15.4 can help to find the right answer.
regards,
Xavi
2015-06-23 17:33 GMT+02:00 Tengfei Chang tengfei.ch...@gmail.com:
Jonathan ,
Could you pointed which annexes or a page I can refer to? Did it say
that is an example
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
