18, 2010 4:53 PM
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: IPv6 WG; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Le 18 sept. 2010 à 02:22, JP Vasseur a écrit :
On Sep 15, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
...
However, it would be pretty easy to put something
: roll-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:roll-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi
Després
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 4:53 PM
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: IPv6 WG; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Le 18 sept. 2010 à 02:22, JP Vasseur a écrit :
On Sep 15
Pascal == Pascal Thubert (pthubert) pthub...@cisco.com writes:
Pascal Hi Rémi:
Pascal We'll be very glad that 6LoWPAN compresses RPL
Pascal optimally. But RPL being layer 2 agnostic cannot depend on
Only when the security is provide by the layer 2 can the layer 2 do any
today.
Take care,
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:18 PM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); ROLL WG; IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
On Sep
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:28 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: JP Vasseur; IPv6 WG; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Le 21 sept. 2010 à 14:08
On Sep 21, 2010, at 15:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
Pascal We'll be very glad that 6LoWPAN compresses RPL
Pascal optimally. But RPL being layer 2 agnostic cannot depend on
Only when the security is provide by the layer 2 can the layer 2 do any
compression. Otherwise, the encryption
On Sep 15, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
*before* the IP header?
Yes. Ever since you proposed pretty much that at a previous IETF meeting,
I've been thinking that architecturally it makes a lot of sense to
Le 18 sept. 2010 à 02:22, JP Vasseur a écrit :
On Sep 15, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
...
However, it would be pretty easy to put something in 6lowpan to carry those
3 bytes.
(Consider it an advanced form of header compression for the 48-byte IP-in-IP
thing, if you don't
Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need *before*
the IP header?
Yes. Ever since you proposed pretty much that at a previous IETF meeting, I've
been thinking that architecturally it makes a lot of sense to think about ROLL
as a sub-IP protocol.
The downside is
Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need *before*
the IP header?
Yes. Ever since you proposed pretty much that at a previous IETF meeting, I've
been thinking that architecturally it makes a lot of sense to think about ROLL
as a sub-IP protocol.
The downside is
Le 15 sept. 2010 à 04:35, Erik Nordmark a écrit :
... Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
*before* the IP header?
That avoids the overhead.
In www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg12204, I essentially proposed
that (quote below).
The downside is
So that might use the mesh network header part of the 6lowpan header?
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
*before* the IP header?
Yes. Ever since you proposed pretty much that at a previous IETF meeting,
On Sep 15, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
So that might use the mesh network header part of the 6lowpan header?
We would need be using the compressed ID header
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:06 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Has anybody discussed adding a header with just the 3 bytes you need
On Sep 15, 2010, at 16:19, Fred Baker wrote:
So that might use the mesh network header part of the 6lowpan header?
That would be a bit more radical, I think (and there is no place to put a rank
or instance ID in RFC 4944).
But the effect is similar, as the ROLL-specific information would
On 08/11/10 04:41 PM, Philip Levis wrote:
Basically, RPL puts up to two pieces information in packets that it
routes. The first is which routing topology this packet should be
routed on: RPL supports multiple parallel topologies, e.g., one
optimized for low latency and a second optimized for
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shane
Amante
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Because of your last two bullets I have to ask the following. How would
Wes,
On Aug 17, 2010, at 09:53 MDT, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shane
Amante
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Because
mutable and 8 bits immutable
Wes,
On Aug 17, 2010, at 09:53 MDT, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shane
Amante
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits
On 2010-08-18 07:10, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
but I think it'll end up coming back to your original assertion about hosts
vs network, and if we have to try to compromise so that both can use it, you
might end up needing some of that complexity.
That is completely obvious to me from this
Pascal [Pascal] The FL based proposal for RPL uses 12 mutable
bits.
Pascal They are used as an in-band control plane that checks
the
Pascal consistency of routing states along a path. Those states
can
Pascal easily get out of sync due to the nature of the links,
but
Le 12 août 2010 à 10:47, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
We'll note that the Hop by Hop + IP in IP is costly but
solves the generic problem *within* the RPL network. The use of the Flow
label *within* the RPL network would be an alternate so it could have a
more limited applicability,
Le 12 août 2010 à 04:02, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-08-12 11:34, Philip Levis wrote:
On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 10 août 2010 à 18:09, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Rémi == Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr writes:
Rémi RFC 3697 isn't concerned with
Le 10 août 2010 à 18:09, Michael Richardson a écrit :
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
Le 10 août 2010 à 21:06, Fred Baker a écrit :
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
Pascal [Pascal] The FL based proposal for RPL uses 12 mutable
bits.
Pascal They are used as an in-band control plane that checks the
Pascal consistency of routing states along a path. Those states
can
Pascal easily get out of sync due to the nature of the links, but
On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Pascal [Pascal] The FL based proposal for RPL uses 12 mutable
bits.
Pascal They are used as an in-band control plane that checks the
Pascal consistency of routing states along a path. Those states
can
Pascal
-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
] On Behalf
Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:05 AM
To: r...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
{there is a thread which started on r...@ietf.org, and ipv6
-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:05 AM
To: r...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
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
6man; Michael Richardson; r...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Le 9 août 2010 à 12:17, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
Hi Michael:
With http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
tried to stay within
-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
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
)
Cc: 6man 6man; Michael Richardson; r...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Le 9 août 2010 à 12:17, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
Hi Michael:
snip
[Pascal] We agree here. The point if that there might be enough room
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
or
global).
Cheers,
Pascal
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:35 PM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
{there is a thread which started on r...@ietf.org, and ipv6@ietf.org,
and then
seemed to have dropped r...@ietf.org. I'm not on ipv6@ietf.org, so
there likely
are message there I've missed}
okay, so I've read
-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:05 AM
To: r...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
On Aug 9, 2010, at 3:17 AM, 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 proposal is
...@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
{there is a thread which started on r...@ietf.org, and ipv6@ietf.org,
and then
seemed to have dropped r...@ietf.org. I'm not on ipv6@ietf.org, so
there likely
Hi Aleksi,
Is it right to understand from your comments that you accept the proposed
combination (mutable if and only if 0; stateless hash or stateful random number
where it is set)?
RD
Le 4 août 2010 à 00:25, Aleksi Suhonen a écrit :
Hi,
On Aug 3, 2010, at 02:53 MDT, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 4 août 2010 à 05:21, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-08-04 00:49, Rémi Després wrote:
...
In my understanding, a reason why it is usually set to 0 is that a stateful
operation, which is complex, is so far mandatory (because a pseudo-random
number has to be assigned to each flow,
Subject: RE: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Dear All,
splitting this field not so obvious:
- API should be changed - or at least truncate the existing flow field
to
8 bit.
- applications relying on 20 bits flow bits should be sought and
fixed. I believe
they assumed
On 2010-08-04 00:49, Rémi Després wrote:
...
In my understanding, a reason why it is usually set to 0 is that a stateful
operation, which is complex, is so far mandatory (because a pseudo-random
number has to be assigned to each flow, not a stateless hash).
If a 5-tuple hash is permitted in
-Original Message-
From: Tina TSOU [mailto:t...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:42 AM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
Cc: Aleksi Suhonen; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
So you mean either we solve the issue of checksum, or we rather
Just on one point:
On 2010-07-31 04:17, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
...
we can't use flow label for something like draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp because
3697 says it has to be immutable
But that is a completely false argument. The model described in
that draft is 100% consistent with an
Tina,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the different camps.
One of the problems with this idea is that it makes the sub-fields to small to
be useful.
Bob
Bob,
I understood. But this is one of the best compromises so far.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Tina,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe
Hi,
On 07/28/10 13:24, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the different
camps.
I hated it. :-(
I feel that changing the structure of the IPv6 header like that at this
stage is too late. And I
Comments in line.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Hi,
On 07/28/10 13:24, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the
59 matches
Mail list logo
