Hi Gab,
The proposal to include the original source (in addition to the final
destination)
sounds good to me.
A related issue on which I'd like to see some more discussion is
the inclusion of the original link src and final link dst on a per IP
datagram
v/s per fragment basis.
If we use short addresses (2 bytes), then including this information
in each fragment introduces around 4 bytes
of overhead but allows the fragments to move through the
multihop network quickly. Otherwise, the full packet would need
to be reassembled at each hop which seems quite burdensome
and unnecessarily restrictive.
The way I understand the current draft at:
http://www.geocities.com/gabriel_montenegro_2000/draft-ietf-6lowpan-
format-00a.htm
the final destination info (which is needed to look
up the next hop at each intermediate point in the path) is only
carried in the first fragment. Is this correct or just a
misunderstanding
on my part?
vipul
On Oct 18, 2005, at 3:23 AM, gabriel montenegro wrote:
Hi Vipul,
--- Vipul Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
So it seems to me that including the source explicitly
(like the destination) is the best option. And that one
should use short addresses to minimize the addressing
overhead.
I am convinced of this as well. In the note I added, I say so,
although it
was not clear.
I think for the upcoming rev we should add that original source field,
yes.
Any objections?
-gabriel
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
