Dear 6lo WG, As you may have noticed, there are currently 3 approaches to enable route-over multihop in draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4. A preliminary analysis of pros and cons of each one is provided in Appendix B of the draft, in -02 [1].
Summarizing: - “Straightforward Route-Over” incurs the lowest header overhead, as it only requires the SCHC Dispatch (1 byte). However, it is the most demanding approach in terms of memory usage, since all network nodes (including intermediate nodes) need to store all the Rules in use in the network. Therefore, it will be suitable for rather static, small networks and/or where nodes have sufficient memory. - “Tunneled, RPL-based Route-Over” incurs greater header overhead (with some cases in the order of 12-16 bytes, although it may be more depending on e.g. the number of hops), but only the endpoints need to store Rules, and only those Rules used for the end-to-end communications such endpoints are involved in. It requires the use of RPL, in its non-storing mode. - “Pointer-based Route-Over approach” also only requires the endpoints to store the Rules they will need to communicate with other endpoints. The header overhead contains a fixed 3-byte part and a variable one. The latter depends on the kind of interactions between endpoints: a) in special cases, it could be even zero, b) in intranetwork communication it could be 2-8 bytes (depending on how IPv6 addresses are built) and c) if interactions with various possible external networks it could be up to 16 bytes. This approach does not require the use of RPL, and is also compatible with RPL storing mode. There may be further subtleties to consider. A question that has been raised is whether we might want to keep all three route-over approaches in the document or reduce the number of such approaches. As authors we are in favor of enabling all of them, since they may be complementary, and the most suitable one can be chosen for each deployment. Thoughts? Would you have any preference? Thanks, Carles and Ana (document authors) [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6lo-schc-15dot4-02#name-analysis-of-route-over-mult
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
