I do Digging in the packet even with nice names like DPI is a layer violation. It breaks the e2e principle so that if we add something to the end points the join message may become unreadable by the dpi. The art of the IETF translates upper layer semantics in lower layer abstraction and in this case we have the TOS bits. RFC 6282 allows to express those in a concise fashion. 6LoRH does not and if IP in IP is used the TOS bits of the inner packet must be used....
Regards, Pascal Le 8 nov. 2017 à 23:42, Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : Thanks Michael. Does everyone agree with Michael's comments? On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > option 1: we don't change the format of the packet, and ask forwarding > nodes to (deep) inspect the packets, looking for the CoAP > Stateless-Proxy option. It's specific to this join process, and is expensive to do. > option 2: we change the packet format, and > introduce semantics in the traffic class bits in the IPv6 header It's general to many things. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]<mailto:mcr%[email protected]>>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- -- _______________________________________ Thomas Watteyne, PhD Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH www.thomaswatteyne.com<http://www.thomaswatteyne.com> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
