On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:51:26PM -0700, Geoff Mulligan wrote: > Juergen, > I guess that I missed your suggestions on fixes to the RFC?
The relevant messages were posted in June: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:12:09 +0200 From: Matus Harvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [6lowpan] compressed UDP Length field Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:17:05 +0200 From: Matus Harvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [6lowpan] ICMP error messages - ICMP payload Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:43:33 +0200 From: Matus Harvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [6lowpan] fragment reassembly Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:06:46 +0200 From: Matus Harvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [6lowpan] alignment of HC-compressed/inline-carried fields > I like the idea of finding a way to more efficiently transfer SNMP > messages as well as a simpler way to implement SNMP (not a full ASN.1) SNMP never used full ASN.1 - and I am not sure BER encoding is actually a problem. There are implementation techniques to deal with BER data reasonably fast and with a small memory footprint. Most of the overhead in SNMP messages comes from the OIDs if an SNMP message carries multiple varbinds; there have been proposals in the past to perform OID compression - not sure whether some of this would be applicable here. The other probably more important thing is of course again security; SNMPv1 is historic and SNMPv3 with security is much more verbose and computationally expensive (if you enable security). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
