On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:57:12PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> On 24/07/14 17:56, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
> When using the fragmentation mechanism described in
> Section 5.3 of [RFC4944], any header that cannot fit withi
On 24/07/14 17:56, Alexander Aring wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
When using the fragmentation mechanism described in
Section 5.3 of [RFC4944], any header that cannot fit within the first
fragment MUST NOT be compressed.
Any header == sum of headers.
M
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:46:10PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > >
> > >When using the fragmentation mechanism described in
> > >Section 5.3 of [RFC4944], any header that cannot fit within the first
> > >fragment MUST NOT be compressed.
> > >
> > >
> > >Any header == sum of headers.
> > Maybe t
> >
> >When using the fragmentation mechanism described in
> >Section 5.3 of [RFC4944], any header that cannot fit within the first
> >fragment MUST NOT be compressed.
> >
> >
> >Any header == sum of headers.
> Maybe they mean to cover further application headers that can be compressed.
> Look at t
On 24/07/14 17:22, Alexander Aring wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
>> On 24/07/14 16:52, Alexander Aring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:59:21PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
Looking at contiki code [0], line 1582 onwards it looks to me like they
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> On 24/07/14 16:52, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:59:21PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> >>Looking at contiki code [0], line 1582 onwards it looks to me like they
> >>process fragmentation headers first and t
On 24/07/14 16:52, Alexander Aring wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:59:21PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
>> Looking at contiki code [0], line 1582 onwards it looks to me like they
>> process fragmentation headers first and then could potentially process an
>> uncompressed IPv6 header.
>>
>> [
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:59:21PM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> Looking at contiki code [0], line 1582 onwards it looks to me like they
> process fragmentation headers first and then could potentially process an
> uncompressed IPv6 header.
>
> [0]
> https://github.com/contiki-os/contiki/blob
Looking at contiki code [0], line 1582 onwards it looks to me like they process
fragmentation headers first and then could potentially process an uncompressed
IPv6 header.
[0] https://github.com/contiki-os/contiki/blob/master/core/net/ipv6/sicslowpan.c
Also I've just read in RFC 6282 on page 5
This is my understanding which may be totally wrong by the way :)
4944 defines a header stack of
mesh header
broadcast header
fragmentation header
which encapsulate the LoWPAN payload.
We don't support the first 2 so we have only have a fragmentation header that
allows link layer fragmentation
Martin,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> It's doesn't specifically say you can, but then again it doesn't specifically
> say you can't, it's just my interpretation :)
> It makes sense that you would only send uncompressed if the packet is small
> anyway so I'll
It's doesn't specifically say you can, but then again it doesn't specifically
say you can't, it's just my interpretation :)
It makes sense that you would only send uncompressed if the packet is small
anyway so I'll park this one unless we find a 6lowpan implementation that does
this.
-Martin
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:28:37AM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > >From what I can read from 4944 you should be allowed to receive
> > >uncompressed IPv6 packets that have a 6lowpan fragmentation header which I
> >
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:07:09AM +0100, Martin Townsend wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >From what I can read from 4944 you should be allowed to receive uncompressed
> >IPv6 packets that have a 6lowpan fragmentation header which I don't think we
> >currently do.
> I have a patch waiting to allow this but wa
Hi,
>From what I can read from 4944 you should be allowed to receive uncompressed
>IPv6 packets that have a 6lowpan fragmentation header which I don't think we
>currently do.
I have a patch waiting to allow this but was wondering if I am right in this
assumption.
-Martin.
---
15 matches
Mail list logo
