> We do not use sequence numbers in SF0. Why do you ask for lollipop
> sequence scheme?
Sorry, I mispoke. I'm poor ignorant guy who knows little about scheduling :-)
It's about 6P not SF0... which is used in SFx.
Xavi spoke about it in today's call.
> I wondered why it was called a Lollipop Sequence Number, so I asked
> Google,
> and saw:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollipop_sequence_numbering
> which says:
> Lollipop sequence numbering was originally believed to resolve the
> ambiguity problem in cyclic sequence numbering schemes, and was used in
> OSPF version 1 for this reason. Later work showed that this was not the
> case, like in the ARPANET sequence bug, and OSPF version 2 replaced it
> with a linear numbering space, with special rules for what happens when
> the sequence numbers reach the end of the numbering space[1].
> with a link to:
> http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=24090&seqNum=4
> are we sure that we are not being bitten in the same way?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
