Carsten,
I think that this is a neat idea. As you state there may be many
layer 2 mesh implementations that need some sort of intermediate header
and for them all to use NALP seems like a bad idea.
When we talked about this I thought we considered using the reserved
bits of NALP to carry the length value so that 0010xxxx would be the
extension header identifier and length. I'm not opposed to use
1101xxxx, I was just wondering about the change.
I'm not sure I like the idea of splitting headers greater than 16 bytes
into two pieces with two extension headers. What about again using an
escape value of 1111 to indicate the length is 15 plus the next byte.
This has the advantage that the headers don't have to be broken into
artificial pieces.
If we don't use the NALP reserved space, has anyone considered allowing
addresses in this space to be registered for specific layer 2 mesh
protocols and to extend it to another byte if the 6 lower bits are all 1
- 00111111
Unfortunately, it seems though that at the last meeting in Nice ISA100
decided NOT to utilize this idea that we had worked out and plan to
continue to just use NALP. Oh well, I think that this is still an
excellent extension to 4944 and may be used by others.
geoff
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
