Dear Alexander, > Dear Carles, > > > On 20.10.19 15:37, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: >> Dear Alexander, >> >> Thanks for your responses. >> >> To some extent, I see similarities between the environment you are >> considering (CAN) and MS/TP. Few years ago, the 6Lo WG produced RFC >> 8163, >> which specifies IPv6 over MS/TP. > > The main difference I see between CAN and MS/TP is the packet/frame > size. MS/TP satisfies the minimal requirements of 1500 octets minimal > MTU where CAN only has 8 octets of payload per frame. 6LoCAN therefore > defines a fragmentation an reassembly.
Your draft proposes using a subset of ISO-TP for fragmentation and reassembly. Clarifying question: is ISO-TP part of the CAN protocol (stack)? >> I understand that using header compression reduces the amount of IPv6 >> packets that will require fragmentation. Also, it provides a more >> efficient use of the bus. Interesting! > > IPHC helps to reduce the number of frames needed to send an IPv6 packet. > Nevertheless, sending an IPv6 packet in a single frame is only possible > for CAN-FD (up to 64 bytes payload). Classical CAN always needs > fragmentation and reassembly. I see. Anyway, there is the need to comply with the 1280-byte IPv6 MTU requirement, but it is already satisfied in your draft. > In my opinion, 6LoCAN is the right WG because it defines a > "6lo-adaption-layer". It specifies a fragmentation and reassembly as > other 6lo technologies do. I actually mentioned MS/TP and the (6Lo-produced) RFC 8163 to emphasize the potential similarities with CAN (and 6LoCAN), since the 6Lo WG has also dealt with technologies with somewhat different characteristics (e.g. wireless, mesh topologies, energy-constrained devices, etc.). Kind regards, Carles > Kind regards, > > Alexander _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
