Le 12 août 2010 à 10:47, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit : > We'll note that the Hop by Hop + IP in IP is costly but > solves the generic problem *within* the RPL network. The use of the Flow > label *within* the RPL network would be an alternate so it could have a > more limited applicability, like a more limited number of instances or a > Rank floor that can be expressed in 1 octet or less, which is probably > more than enough considering that infinity is 16 in RIP. This could > cover a large number of foreseeable deployments. > > There is certainly a strong benefit in Low Power Lossy Networks to make > the flow label mutable.
How strong the benefit isn't clear to me. Since RPL networks are recognized as such by hosts, it seems easy to add a short field, just before the IP header, to contain whatever is useful for this kind of network. Mixing functions with those of FLs would thus be avoided. Did I miss something? RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
