Mario, My comment are inline:
On 1/18/07, Mario Mao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To Daniel: Thanks for you tips. However, I believe the compression issue is not just for implementation. Thinking about the reason why we need to build IPv6 upper lowpan node, there is high possibility of global scope cummnication. In this scenario, and considering the format defination, the class [1] and [4] could appear at the same time. For example, one remote controll center want to access an lowpan node, they would use IPv6 global address to communicate. When the IP packet reach to 6lowpan gateway, this routing node would redeliever it to the internal lowpan node. Now, the adaptation layer of the gateway should use class [1] and [4] for destination address compression and class [1] and [3] for source address. That's also the scenario of my assumption [1]. Is it better to clarify all possible situation?
If we are considering global communication, there is no common prefix between source address and destionation address comparing with link-local addresses [fe80::/64], thus [1] or [3] is in use. In that sense, 6lowpan header compression is less meaningful than link-local communication. Or need more study on this case. Daniel <snip> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
