[riot-devel] RPL DAO target concat from fib

Oleg Hahm oleg at riot-os.org
Thu Oct 19 19:42:55 CEST 2017

Hey Rahul,

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:25:19PM +0530, Rahul Jadhav wrote:
> > > > But with the addition of a proper
> > > > 6lowpan fragmentation, we dropped that functionality.
> > >
> > > [RJ] 6lo frag is not a good option to use and should be avoided as far as
> > > possible.
> >
> > Is this your personal opinion or some IETF consensus?
> [RJ] In IETF98, Pascal had presented the problem stmts related to 6lo
> fragmentation and post-session there was a discussion (
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/current/msg02355.html).
> Also my experience with regards to 6lo frag also points to problems similar
> to what were mentioned during that session.

Thanks for the pointer.
> > I agree that fragmented ICMPv6 messages are somewhat pointless, but to
> > rely on IPv6 fragmentation for link layers that do not support the minimum
> > MTU for IPv6 and do not offer fragmentation (like IEEE 802.15.4) it still
> > seems to be the best choice to me.
> > Can you elaborate a bit?
> [RJ] i think i didnt appropriately word my stmts. I never suggested to not
> support or disable 6lo fragmentation. In my experiment i have disabled it
> just to check if there are any reasons why RIOT should result in 6lo
> fragmentation. I found this (DAO) case and thought, may be, this  is not a
> good candidate to result in 6lo frag and can be avoided and hence the mail.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes absolutely sense - and I agree that
fragmented DAOs are not a good idea.

fs_dprintk (FS_DEBUG_INIT, "Ha! Initialized OK!\n");
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.riot-os.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20171019/6a133d99/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list