Hi Oleg, Pls find my comments inline.
Regards, Rahul On 19 October 2017 at 17:12, Oleg Hahm <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Rahul, > > another clarification question: > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:16:17AM +0530, Rahul Jadhav wrote: > > > > But with the addition of a proper > > > 6lowpan fragmentation, we dropped that functionality. > > > > [RJ] 6lo frag is not a good option to use and should be avoided as far as > > possible. > > Is this your personal opinion or some IETF consensus? [RJ] In IETF98, Pascal had presented the problem stmts related to 6lo fragmentation and post-session there was a discussion ( https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/current/msg02355.html). Also my experience with regards to 6lo frag also points to problems similar to what were mentioned during that session. I agree that fragmented > ICMPv6 messages are somewhat pointless, but to rely on IPv6 fragmentation > for > link layers that do not support the minimum MTU for IPv6 and do not offer > fragmentation (like IEEE 802.15.4) it still seems to be the best choice to > me. > Can you elaborate a bit? > [RJ] i think i didnt appropriately word my stmts. I never suggested to not support or disable 6lo fragmentation. In my experiment i have disabled it just to check if there are any reasons why RIOT should result in 6lo fragmentation. I found this (DAO) case and thought, may be, this is not a good candidate to result in 6lo frag and can be avoided and hence the mail. > Cheers, > Oleg > -- > panic("Oh boy, that early out of memory?"); > linux-2.2.16/arch/mips/mm/init.c > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
