Subject: [6lowpan] Proposal for alternative 6lowpan header encoding

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:49:02 -0700

Folks,
  Arch Rock have submitted a proposal for a different 6lowpan header
encoding.  David and Jonathan put together a set a slides to describe
their idea to simplify the 6lowpan adaptation header.  They are working
on a complete proposal.

I have posted the slides to the wiki at:

http://6lowpan.tzi.org/FrontPage?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=6lowpan-header-proposal.ppt

You can also get a copy (if you are wiki challenged) at:
http://www.mulligan.com/6lowpan/6lowpan-header-proposal.ppt

Their design seems to follow the ideas of IPv6, reduce the header size
in almost all cases, allow for extensions, byte align the fields and as
I've thought about coding it, it looks like less complex parsing.

While a proposal such as this (ideas tend to come on their own schedule)
at this late stage in our process will be disruptive, the potential
value of simplifying and fixing some of the identified problems in the
current design is, in my opinion, worth the time and effort and risk to
our already blown schedule to evaluate and discuss within the group.
 
Please take a look at the slides.  We only a have few days before the
meeting on Wednesday and if possible I would like to hear peoples
thoughts.  I have asked Jonathan and David to attend the WG meeting and
to prepare a more in-depth presentation related to this new design.

        geoff

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 03:18:53 +0100 (CET)

I like it. From a look at the slides I think David and Jonathan's header
format looks easily understandable, simplistic, while being extensible in
the same way as the IPv6 header format is. It looks to be very
straightforward to implement which means that implementations will have
fewer bugs, different implementors are more likely to end up with
compatible impementations (even in any tricky corner cases), and that an
implementation should be easily doable even for the very smallest of
devices.

/adam

---

From: Vipul Gupta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:50:38 -0800

I agree. The new format is not only cleaner in how it deals with
fragmentation, multiple hops and extensions; it is also easier to
implement.

vipul

On Nov 3, 2006, at 6:18 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>> http://6lowpan.tzi.org/FrontPage? 
>> action=AttachFile&do=get&target=6lowpan-header-proposal.ppt
>>

---

From: "Lee Jung-Hwan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:30:16 +0900

Folks,

I am Jung-Hwan Lee working for iBIT technologies, Inc in south of korea and
in charge of USN R & D.
our company has being implemented and tested usn modules and gateway with
6lowpan functionality & IPv6 protocol stack.
but, in progress usn modules and gateway, we have several problems. for
examples,
- byte alignment
- 6lowpan <-> IPv6 header translation
- and so on

The ppt files that written by David and Jonathan is so simple and impressive
from the viewpoint of implementor.

Thanks for your paper.

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Mulligan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:49 AM
To: 6lowpan
Subject: [6lowpan] Proposal for alternative 6lowpan header encoding

Folks,
  Arch Rock have submitted a proposal for a different 6lowpan header
encoding.  David and Jonathan put together a set a slides to describe their
idea to simplify the 6lowpan adaptation header.  They are working on a
complete proposal.

http://6lowpan.tzi.org/FrontPage?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=6lowpan-hea
der-proposal.ppt

Their design seems to follow the ideas of IPv6, reduce the header size in
almost all cases, allow for extensions, byte align the fields and as I've
thought about coding it, it looks like less complex parsing.

While a proposal such as this (ideas tend to come on their own schedule) at
this late stage in our process will be disruptive, the potential value of
simplifying and fixing some of the identified problems in the current design
is, in my opinion, worth the time and effort and risk to our already blown
schedule to evaluate and discuss within the group.
 
Please take a look at the slides.  We only a have few days before the
meeting on Wednesday and if possible I would like to hear peoples thoughts.
I have asked Jonathan and David to attend the WG meeting and to prepare a
more in-depth presentation related to this new design.

        geoff