Return-Path: From: Stefan Schmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH bluetooth-next 2/4] 6lowpan: add nhc module for GHC extension header detection To: Alexander Aring References: <1442577168-23183-1-git-send-email-stefan@osg.samsung.com> <1442577168-23183-3-git-send-email-stefan@osg.samsung.com> <20150918214415.GA6872@omega> <20150918221429.GA12228@omega> Cc: linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org, jukka.rissanen@linux.intel.com, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <5655BC92.7050908@osg.samsung.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:50:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150918221429.GA12228@omega> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello. On 19/09/15 00:14, Alexander Aring wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:44:15PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:52:46PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > .... > >> btw: >> >> Something is wrong at iana registration: >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#lowpan_nhc >> >> For RFC6282 they did each entry for each extension header, for GHC not. >> >> Don't know why :-( >> >> Also iana says it's >> >> 10110EEN whereas RFC7400 says it's 1011EIDN >> ^ >> | >> I don't know where this bit comes from. >> > it isn't wrong, GHC EID is defined for 0-3 only so the first bit is > always zero. So 10110 E E N is right whereas: > > 1011000N -> Hop > 1011001N -> Routing > 1011010N -> Fragment > 1011011N -> Destination > > Seems like Mobility and IPv6 is not defined for GHC. > > But I still don't know why iana put it for RFC6282 in a new entry on the > list for each EID and for GHC they did only one entry for the mask without > EID bits. I guess we could ask them if we really want to know. regards Stefan Schmidt