Dale,
On 2010-09-17 14:37, Dale W. Carder wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> This is yet another substantial rewrite following the recent
>> discussions on the list (and some off the list). Please read
>> it with new eyes - a diff from the previous version will not
>
On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> This is yet another substantial rewrite following the recent
> discussions on the list (and some off the list). Please read
> it with new eyes - a diff from the previous version will not
> be very helpful.
Is there a reason that hosts/nod
Hi,
This is yet another substantial rewrite following the recent
discussions on the list (and some off the list). Please read
it with new eyes - a diff from the previous version will not
be very helpful.
Also, there's now a 3rd author.
Brian, Sheng, Shane
Original Message
Su
Hi erik,
If we compress IP in IP and a HbH header, we can hardly make that 0 bits
overhead. The FL allows a total cost of 20 bits, whereas the
compression will end up with 5 or 6 octets minimum...
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:erik.nordm...@oracle.com]
> Sen
On 09/16/10 05:07 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
*before* the IP header?
We've discussed using forms of tag switching from the beginning of the
WG but there must be an IP based reference model before we start doing
the
Hi Erik:
> > The challenge is that the RPLInstanceId is 8 bits and Rank is 16
bits.
This much of the challenge can be absorbed by RPL. In most reasonable
cases, we could can make the floor(Rank) 8 or less bits, and that's all
we need to accomplish the purpose of this header.
> I realize that taki
