I agree with this format! +1 Tengfei
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear TengFei: > > > > I agree that the draft is lacking description when there is no IP in IP. > I’ll create a ticket. > > > > When there is no IP in IP present in the 6LoRH, then the headers > compressed by 6LoRH are considered placed right after the IP header > compressed by IPHC, and considered as compressed. It results that the NH > bit in the IPHC really indicates how the compression is done for the header > that is after the headers compressed by 6LoRH. > > > > For an ICMP message I’d think that you’ll be using: > > > > +- ... -+- ... -+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... > > |11110001| RPI | NH = 0 | NH = 58 | ICMP message > > |Page 1 | 6LoRH | 6LOWPAN-IPHC | (ICMP) | (no compression) > > +- ... -+- ... +-+-+-+- ... -+-+-+-+-+ ... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+... > > <- RFC 6282 -> > > No RPL artifact > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* 6lo [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tengfei Chang > *Sent:* lundi 18 janvier 2016 09:18 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [6lo] Format inside of an RPL domain > > > > Dear All, > > > > Currently I have a question about the format of packet inside of an RPL > domain when using 6LoRH. > > > > For example when ping a mote inside an RPL domain, will the format of echo > request and reply look like this? > > > > PAGE DISPATCH (page 1) + IPHC + 6LoRH RH3 + ICMPv6 > > PAGE DISPATCH (page 1) + IPHC + 6LoRH RPI + ICMPv6 > > > > If so, there is no next header field in 6LoRH to indicate the following > field is ICMP. > > What's the right format for this case? > > > > Thanks a lot! > > Tengfei >
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
