> From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:19:17 +0100
>
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 20:41, Dario Tedeschi wrote:
>
> > compressed headers spanning multiple RFC4944 fragments
> > presents huge complexities in re-assembly
>
> My first reaction would be "don't do that, then!".
> (http://catb.org/jargon/html/D/Don-t-do-that-then-.html)
Even if I don't do it, how can I be sure that no one else
will? In the absence of any indication one way or the
other in 4944, it would be dangerous to assume that no
incoming packet will have a compressed header in the second
fragment.
> I don't think that 4944 specifies anything that lets you have the
> compressed header extend beyond the first frame.
4944 doesn't say anything one way or the other, as far as I
can tell. I can't see it happening with the 4944
compression, which may be why 4944 is silent on the issue.
With the HC draft allowing compressed UDP headers to follow
routing headers it is much more of a possibility.
> I'm not sure we explicitly discussed this, but certainly I didn't see
> a need.
My one concern would be source routes, which are eminently
suitable for compression and even when compressed could
conceivably extend into the second fragment. It would be a
shame to be able to compress short source routes but not
long ones.
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
