Hi,
On 8/18/08 7:45 PM, "Jonathan Hui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are multiple implementations (route-over and mesh-under) that > successfully utilize the current format today. If you want addressing > information in each L2 fragment, then forward at L2. If you want to forward > everything at L3, then fragment hop-by-hop. L3 routing is agnostic to the > specific layer that forwarding occurs. > > JP> this was not Julien¹s point: depending on how you fragment you may or you > may not (in this case) be able to route at each hop of course. Without > addressing info in each fragment, this implies L2 forwarding and thus a > mesh-under solution. > > Thanks. > > JP. > > > -- > Jonathan Hui > > > > > On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:35 AM, JP Vasseur wrote: > >> Which requires a mesh under solution and does not work with route over .... >> >> Thanks. >> >> JP. >> >> >> On 8/11/08 6:39 PM, "Jonathan Hui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Julien Abeille (jabeille) wrote: >>> >>>> Does fragment 2 look like: >>>> >>>> >>>> FRAGN dispatch, datagram size, tag and offset | HC1 dispatch | HC1 >>>> encoding = 0xFB | HC2encoding | IPv6 hop limit | compressed source and dest >>>> UDP port | UDP checksum | rest of UDP payload >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> >>>> FRAGN dispatch, datagram size, tag and offset | HC1 dispatch | HC1 >>>> encoding =0x FA | IPv6 hop limit | rest of UDP payload >>>> >>> >>> Neither. Everything after the frag header is considered part of the >>> fragmented payload. >>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan Hui >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6lowpan mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >>> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
