Carsten... > On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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.
I think I understand the technique you are describing. Is there a written guideline or specification for the technique somewhere? I don't recognize the term "multi-track environment". Can you define it for me? > >> 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. In particular, I think I can infer how datagram tags would be used in a hop-scoped way with virtual reassembly buffers. It would be good to have text to work through the details. - Ralph > > Grüße, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
