On Aug 9, 2010, at 3:17 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Michael: > > With http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I > tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in your > mail. > > I think the question we have now is not whether that proposal is lawful > but whether the new law being defined at 6MAN would prevent it in the > future. > If the updated rules allow, then I'll be glad to work on an FL-based > alternate to the IPinIP/HbH. > > It appeared at the 6MAN WG meeting that 12 bits mutable was exactly what > the core network was asking for to do its load balancing. > A first question to the group could be whether 12 mutable bits are > enough for the sensible usages envisioned so far?
My 2c: In the case of the hop-by-hop header, 12 bits is clearly enough for an 8-bit RPLInstanceId, but clearly not enough for a 16-bit Rank. I think that trying to compress them (especially Rank) would be a mistake, whose complexity would far outweigh the benefits. Phil -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
