Hi Michael,
Thank you for the question! While I need more time to read the references
provided by Adnan and think about the issue, a quick answer to your question
is: in our current design, we require each sub network to have only a single
prefix, otherwise the scheme won't work as currently de
Hi Pascal,
Thanks for the advice! I would start to think about the other application
scenarios and use cases that this work fit for.
Best regards,
Haoyu
-Original Message-
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 2:51 AM
To: Haoyu Song
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; int-a
Hello Haoyu
> -Original Message-
> From: Haoyu Song
> Sent: mardi 9 novembre 2021 22:25
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: 6...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
>
> Copied to INTAREA WG because this was also discussed in it.
>
> Hi Pa
While not really a supporter of the scheme, let me ask:
Adnan Rashid wrote:
> Consider if you have multi tenant network, then will your scheme work?
Please if you could explain what a multi-tenant network is in this context.
What is the trust relationship between the tenants and the operato
.@ackl.io>>; 6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
Great discussion and inputs from many header compression experts.
>So maybe for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical
>requirement in add
ander Pelov
; 6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [6lo] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
Great discussion and inputs from many header compression experts.
>So maybe for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical
>requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we
Great discussion and inputs from many header compression experts.
>So maybe for the networks or applications where low latency is a critical
requirement in addition to the bandwidth efficiency, we could find such
context-less scheme more compelling.
I can with certainty give 2 such examples wher
Hi Kerry and Alexander,
Thank you very much for the information. It seems the existing standards serve
their purpose well. But Kerry did mention an interesting point: both these
networks have low data rate and are insensitive to latency. So maybe for the
networks or applications where low laten
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Haoyu Song wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth
> efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost
> of storage and processing in wireless. It would be great if we could find
Dear Haoyu,
Thanks for your reply!
See inline
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:14 AM Haoyu Song wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth
> efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost
> of storage and processin
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for the clarification! It seems you suggest that the bandwidth
efficiency (i.e., the header overhead) is much more important than the cost of
storage and processing in wireless. It would be great if we could find some
quantitative research results. Is there any such info av
Dear Haoyu,
Thanks for the questions.
A couple of thoughts inline.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 10:25 PM Haoyu Song wrote:
> Copied to INTAREA WG because this was also discussed in it.
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
> Thank you very much for the suggestions which are very helpful! The high
> level idea is indeed
Copied to INTAREA WG because this was also discussed in it.
Hi Pascal,
Thank you very much for the suggestions which are very helpful! The high level
idea is indeed drawn from PSTN and PNNI, the proven technologies.
Our P4 prototype evaluation shows that the extra router processing is doable
13 matches
Mail list logo
