-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian == Brian E Carpenter Brian writes:
With
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in
your mail.
I think the question we have now
Hi Brian:
On 2010-08-09 22:17, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Hi Michael:
With http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in your
mail.
I think the question we have now is not whether that
Salut Rémi,
Please see below:
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:50 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: 6man 6man; Michael Richardson; r...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable
Pascal == Pascal Thubert (pthubert) pthub...@cisco.com writes:
On 2010-08-09 22:17, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: Hi
Michael:
With
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend
Hi Pascal,
More comments below.
Le 10 août 2010 à 16:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
Salut Rémi,
Please see below:
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:50 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: 6man
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joel == Joel M Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com writes:
Joel Off-list, although you may decide that my confusion is wider, and
take it
Joel back to the list:
okay, I think it's worthwhile.
Joel When a ROLL network is talking to the rest
Rémi == Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr writes:
Rémi RFC 3697 isn't concerned with ASes, and doesn't need to be.
Rémi The proposal is only that, where load balancing is performed,
Rémi 0 FLs MAY be replaced by meaningful values for this purpose.
Rémi A FL, once set to a non
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten == Carsten Bormann caboc...@gmail.com writes:
Carsten On Aug 10, 2010, at 14:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
The only case where there is a problem is when there is a packet that
arrives from the outside, to a ROLL border router
On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten == Carsten Bormann caboc...@gmail.com writes:
Carsten On Aug 10, 2010, at 14:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
The only case where there is a problem is when there is a packet
6MAN WG,
This is a consensus call on adopting:
Title : Line identification in IPv6 Router Solicitation
messages
Author(s) : S. Krishnan, et al.
Filename : draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt
Pages : 9
Date : 2010-08-04
as a 6MAN working
I would find that surprising. There are ample cases where the originator of a
high data rate flow (sensor data from a radio telescope to a number cruncher,
to pick one example) might want to use the flow label to send data from one
session down multiple paths. Multi-path TCP would be another
On Aug 10, 2010, at 14:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
The rational for lots of bits would be to
encourage random allocation such that in the event that two
uncoordinated ROLL networks happened to merge (even for a few
minutes!!!) that the likelyhood of cross talk would be reduced.
Hmm. If
RPL networks consists of leafs and routers. Both typically act as hosts.
Routers are just hosts that happen to be between other nodes.
(Although, some hosts are too weak to be routers)
OK, I'm not talking of host as in originates or terminates traffic, but
host in the sense of does not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philip == Philip Levis p...@cs.stanford.edu writes:
Philip I feel like we're running in circles, in part due to
Philip different expectations of how RPL will be used.
Philip It's clear that in proprietary or vertically integrated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carsten == Carsten Bormann caboc...@gmail.com writes:
RPL networks consists of leafs and routers. Both typically act as hosts.
Routers are just hosts that happen to be between other nodes.
(Although, some hosts are too weak to be
On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
OK, I'm not talking of host as in originates or terminates traffic, but
host in the sense of does not participate in routing.
It appears there is no such thing inside a RPL world then.
A RPL or Manet world doesn't have the
Hi Pascal,
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:24:42 +0200
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) pthub...@cisco.com wrote:
Salut Rémi,
Please see below:
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:50 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Thanks for all the enlightment about ROLL.
My personal conclusion is that the ROLL considerations
are too complex and too subtle to be compatible with using
a general-purpose IPv6 header field (i.e. the flow label)
for ROLL purposes. They seem to be an extreme case of the
challenges of defining a
On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I guess I don't see the problem to be as big a deal as you suggest.
I'm happy if flow label 0 gets some default RPLinstanceID.
It would be convenient if the rules were relaxed such that on ingress,
the RPL edge router could *set*
Fred == Fred Baker f...@cisco.com writes:
Fred I would find that surprising. There are ample cases where the
Fred originator of a high data rate flow (sensor data from a radio
Fred telescope to a number cruncher, to pick one example) might
Fred want to use the flow label to send
20 matches
Mail list logo
