Hi Rémi: It would not.
We'll be very glad that 6LoWPAN compresses RPL optimally. But RPL being layer 2 agnostic cannot depend on 6LoWPAN. Header and IP in IP insertion is problematic on any network, be it for the MTU issues only. The FL for RPL discussion illustrates that there can be multiple valuable usages of the field by the network. It mostly shows that tying the usage to local balancing only is probably short sighted. Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rémi > Després > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 4:53 PM > To: JP Vasseur > Cc: IPv6 WG; ROLL WG > Subject: Re: [Roll] Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable > > > Le 18 sept. 2010 à 02:22, JP Vasseur a écrit : > > On Sep 15, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > ... > >> > >> However, it would be pretty easy to put something in 6lowpan to carry those > 3 bytes. > >> (Consider it an advanced form of header compression for the 48-byte > >> IP-in-IP thing, if you don't like the sub-IP thinking.) Consult > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-6lowpan-ext-hdr-00 for a sample base > design. > >> Such a simple extension may actually be a preferable way to carry ROLL in > 6lowpan. > > > > "preferable" in which sense ? > > At least, IMHO, in that it eliminates the motivation to interfere with the > current > discussion on improving flow-label utilization. > > Regards, > RD > > > _______________________________________________ > Roll mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
