On Jul 6, 2010, at 14:57, Daniel Gavelle wrote: > However, I think it is safer if the header of the tunnelled (inner) packet is > uncompressed, rather than using 6LowPAN compression on it. This avoids > potential problems with compression extending beyond the first fragment.
Hi Daniel, I must admit I don't get this kind of safety. There are no "potential problems with compression extending beyond the first fragment", there simply is no support for that right now. So don't do it. Whether you program your implementation so that it never even tries to or whether you use the space if it is sufficient is a quality of implementation issue. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
