Hi Gabriel, Please see the comments below. > -----Original Message----- > From: gabriel montenegro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:31 AM > To: Ki-Hyung Kim; 'Samita Chakrabarti'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [6lowpan] format document issues > > thanks, comment below... > > --- Ki-Hyung Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Q2: Did you use the handling rules as per the draft, or did you modify > the > > > link-layer source address at every hop, as implied by your post a > while > > back? > > I didn't change anything of the format document on the simulation. Also > the > > link-layer source address is changed at every hop as everybody expected. > > As I explained before, this departs from the handling rules in the format > draft. > According to those rules (I won't send them again), the source address > does not > change hop-by-hop. The assumption is that if an intermediate node wants to > send an > RERR to its previous hop, it would do a reverse forwarding decision. To be > clear, > if multiple paths were kept, presumably an intermediat node would have > more than one > reverse path to the originator of a message. In this case, it is not clear > to which of > the possible predecessors should the RERR be sent. Perhaps to all of them, > which costs > a bit more. > > You say that the "link-layer source address is changed at every hop as > everybody > expected". > > One conclusion is that given that this contradicts the current handling > rules, then it is > > clear that they need to be clarified by explicitly mentioning that no such > thing is done. > > Another possible conclusion of your "as everybody expected" is that > between these > choices: > > a) link-layer source address is changed at every hop > b) link-layer source address is not changed at every hop > > the draft has obvioiusly made the wrong choice in going with "b". You have > verified that > having only one link-layer source address (the one in the 802.15.4 header) > works under handling rule "a". Have you also evaluated under handling rule > "b" in order > to compare > both? Or is "b" obviously wrong for some reason?
I have looked at your description about the handling rules of the format right before. (Sorry, I had no time to look at the mailing list in these days.) I believe that (a) is right because it is MAC address. I have also double checked it by the packet sniffer of IEEE802.15.4. That is, (b) is not correct. > > -gabriel _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
