Hi Carsten and Richard
Richard Kelsey wrote:
From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:01:26 +0100
On Feb 19, 2010, at 16:55, Jonathan Hui wrote:
Since we are going down this path,
Are we?
I think we have to do something, because the RFC 4944
fragmentation does not work well if the compressed headers
extend beyond the first fragment, or if a new transport
compression is introduced. The HC draft makes this more
important because it includes encodings for IPv6 extension
headers.
Whether this is fixed via a minimal update or a complete
redesign is another question.
I think an updated, simplified fragmentation header to support the HC
draft would be the quickest way forward. Let's fix the main problem that
started this thread: Namely, that compressed headers spanning multiple
RFC4944 fragments presents huge complexities in re-assembly.
Sure, having a 6LoWPAN ACK may solve some issues, but how many use-cases
does it cover and is it worth all the extra work at this point. Couldn't
ACKing be added as an optional protocol some time in the future, for
those that need it?
Regards
Dario
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
