Hello Giulio, There are two levels of fragmentation, I think that might be causing confusion?
IPv6 level fragmentation DOES keep the IPv6 headers between fragments, for example see http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6DatagramSizeMaximumTransmissionUnitMTUF ragment-4.htm . 6LoWPAN level fragmentation DOES NOT keep the IPv6 headers between fragments. 6LoWPAN only repeats the 6LoWPAN header between fragments. The 6LoWPAN MTU is (at least) 1280 bytes. Any packet larger than fits in a single 15.4 packet but smaller or equal to the 6LoWPAN MTU will be fragmented at the 6LoWPAN layer. Anything larger than the 6LoWPAN MTU would have to be fragmented at the IPv6 layer by the sender, and each of those IPv6 fragments may have 6LoWPAN fragmentation applied. Hope this is a lucid explanation, let me know if it doesn't make sense. Regards, -Colin O'Flynn -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: March 16, 2011 6:18 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [6lowpan] questions about lowpan_nhc fields Dear authors, I would speak about 6lowPAN hc-15 draft document. Section 4 describes the ipv6 next header compression and in 4.2 ipv6 extension header encoding is shown. So incidentally in a 802.15.4 127 byte long packet I could have a mesh header and a fragmentation header like RFC4944 describes; after those a lowpan_IPCH dispatch with in-line ipv6 fields, like it is shown in figure 1 on page 5. All those headers (RFC4944 and figure 1 ones) in a single 802.15.4 packet. But figure 11 on page 14 shows that we could have other headers like in IPv6 (so-called extension-header), and they could be heavy like router header or they grows on-the-fly like hop-by-hop header. So my questions are: do those extension headers have to be present in every fragment of an IPv6 packet? And if it is so, doesn't it seem like wasting a lot of space? Let's say that I want to send a message and I have to write entirely the IPv6 source and destination addresses and I want a routing header too, even with 4 addresses, I fill 80 out of 127 bytes only for addresses. Is this example right or I understand wrongly the document? And after these considerations, is it necessary to change the rule to calculate the datagram size field in RFC4944 fragmentation header? Best regards Giulio Ministeri from University of Padova, Italy ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
