On 03/11/2013 02:03 PM, Tony Cheneau wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay, I wanted to check the code first. See my answer > inline. > > Le 2013-03-05 21:20, Alan Ott a écrit : >> On 03/05/2013 02:38 PM, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: >>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:59 AM 3/5/13, Wolf-Bastian Pöttner >>> <poett...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> Am 20.02.2013 um 03:00 schrieb Ralph Droms (rdroms) >>>> <rdr...@cisco.com>: >>>> >>>>> What I want to do is update the header compression and >>>>> fragmentation code so it interoperates using header compression. >>>>> I think I have code for header compression and send-side >>>>> fragmentation. I still need to work on the receive-side >>>>> fragmentation. >>>> Am I right in assuming, that fragmentation between two linux >>>> devices is not supposed to work at the moment? >>> The most recent version of 6lowpan.c that I pulled will interoperate >>> with other instances of that same code, but not with different >>> codebases. >>> >>> 6lowpan.c inserts a fragment offset based on the compressed header, >>> while as I read the relevant RFCs, the offset should be based on the >>> uncompressed header. >> >> Yes, it should be based on the uncompressed header. That's one of the >> things Tony Cheneau fixed. I'm not sure whether that's in his patch set >> that's not upstream yet. > Actually, the patch I have for fragmentation (not integrated in > net-next yet) does not cover this particular issue. The current code > leaves the first fragment empty (i.e. with no payload), this is what > it fixed in my patch. Ralph is right when he says that the > datagram_size field (as per RFC 4944 Section 5.3) is not correctly set > (it is currently computed over the compressed 6LoWPAN header). > > I attached a capture of a fragmentation when using my current patches. > Reported datagram size is 227, while it should be 248 (I believe).
Hmm.. iirc, wireshark didn't complain about that. I'll take a closer look as well. > >>> Because both the fragment generation and fragment reassembly code >>> use the offset in the same way, 6lowpan.c will interoperate with >>> itself but not, e.g., Contiki or XINU code. >> >> I'm sure we fixed that (at least in some case). Tony can confirm. > I wonder why it works, but it might be just out of pure luck. I'm using uncompressed to talk to the contiki devices. I guess that's why. Alan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
