Thomas Watteyne <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the input. Trying to evaluate the overhead of using the > traffic class bits. I assume we want to have one dedicated traffic > class for the join request/reply, which tells nodes NOT to take that > traffic into account for deciding whether to add cells.
I think that you got it right... we we should have an "available bandwidth
only" class, which is not the same as "best effort".
(We can also use a different instanceID if that reuses code paths better.
WAY BACK, I suggested this, but it has other issues)
We might also want to define what "best effort" means in a 6tisch network.
> - what must be standardized, if anything?
> - what would a join request now look like, and what's the hit in terms
> of byte count?
I think it's one byte at the 6lowRH level to send the bits which were
otherwise zero and compressed out.
--
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
