> The major rationale IMO for this draft is that it doesn't require > intermediary nodes to reassemble!
As I said in the WG meeting (and pointed out in the 6LoWPAN book), this has not really been necessary even in the original 6LoWPAN. However, to make “virtual reassembly buffers” work in multi-track environments, the first fragment (which provides the routing info) has to be sent on all tracks. > The label switching mechanism is elegant as the labels are locally > significant only, with no need to maintain a network-wide label registry. The > document should state so. Yes, that is the idea behind datagram tags in RFC 4944 — they are local to the hop. Viewing the set of “virtual reassembly buffers” as a label switching table is certainly one way to describe it. Still, this is an implementation technique for RFC 4944 6LoWPAN fragmentation, not a new protocol. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
