Hi Carsten, > I should probably also clarify that I wrote this draft to un-stall HC
I was hoping the addition of ICMP compression wouldn't require stalling HC, and it could be added as a different I-D. I wouldn't want to hold up HC anymore either! -Colin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent: July 12, 2010 5:23 PM To: [email protected] Cc: '6lowpan' Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Size of NS+ARO+SLLAO in nd-10 On Jul 12, 2010, at 18:10, Daniel Gavelle wrote: > Carsten and Colin, > > The codes for repeated bytes in Carsten's draft looks similar to the LZ77 compression used in Deflate. Of course, backreferences are being used in LZ77, so I'm not claiming anything in my draft is in any way new. > Maybe Deflate could be considered for the ICMP compression. As the half-draft says, I thought about that. Too complicated for my taste (even if you take out most of the gratuitous choice that is in RFC 1951). > Nodes may need Deflate code anyway, either for HTTP compression or X.509 certificate compression. I'm mostly thinking about nodes here that are too limited for either HTTP or X.509. While deflate is not *that* complicated, the eight specially crafted bytecodes are about two orders of magnitude simpler. (Maybe one can make them even simpler, but I didn't invest much time in this demonstration of concept.) I should probably also clarify that I wrote this draft to un-stall HC, not to add complexity to ND. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
