. 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 r
I went and reviewed this document in more detail. Below are my
comments. I will send Jari a heads-up as well, since this is in his
queue for review as well.
2011-04-29 review of -03
Third, to avoid some attacks that lead to the deprecation of RH0,
routers along the way MUST verify that loop
On 4/27/11 9:20 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> I would assume that any type of tunneling would be allowed (e.g., GRE),
>> and agree that it would be useful to enumerate at least general
>> situations where the SHOULD can be ignored.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I perused draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers and it appear
> I would assume that any type of tunneling would be allowed (e.g., GRE),
> and agree that it would be useful to enumerate at least general
> situations where the SHOULD can be ignored.
Agreed.
> I perused draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers and it appears to describe how to
> insert/remove the RPL routin
Hi Thomas,
On 4/27/11 8:34 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Brian Haberman writes:
>
>> That draft has been replaced with draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header. I
>> suggest that you take a look at that draft (currently being reviewed by
>> the IESG), especially section 4.
>
> Hmm. Section 4 says:
>
>
Brian Haberman writes:
> That draft has been replaced with draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header. I
> suggest that you take a look at that draft (currently being reviewed by
> the IESG), especially section 4.
Hmm. Section 4 says:
>Routers SHOULD
>use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified i
M 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 forward
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
>
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 th
> 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=
>
something ?
-Joseph
From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:jon...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 7:38 AM
To: Reddy, Joseph
Cc: 'ipv6@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: Comment on rpl-routing-header draft
Hi Joseph,
I presume that you are not using IP-in-IP tunneling. I
Hi Joseph,
I presume that you are not using IP-in-IP tunneling. If you were using
IP-in-IP tunneling as the draft suggests, then the source address of the
inserting router is included in the outer IP header.
Your comment seems relevant to draft-hui-6man-rpl-headers-00, which describes
what n
The message from Joseph Reddy is important and makes sense.
I have a remark to that message as well: when the RH is built as you
suggest (BR inserts is own address in the RH (the one on which
interface? an ll address?)) it may be questionable about how the AH
authentication header is applied t
I support Joseph's proposal and plan to add it to our implementation.
Regards,
Daniel.
--
__
Daniel Gavelle, Software Team Leader
Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic Ltd.)
NXP Semiconductors Furnival Street,
Sheffield,
S1 4QT, UK
Tel: +44 11
14 matches
Mail list logo
