[Vm-dev] Re: SecureSession frame types

Robert Withers robert.w.withers at gmail.com
Sun Dec 20 14:48:00 UTC 2015


To sort of summarize, then, with this msgSpec, including overall size, 
structure and priority (1 / sanguinity) specified in 6 or 7 bytes, will 
fit a 64bit register, with room, for low-level routing. Add a 32bit 
register to the 64bit register, and you can fit the 11 or 12 bytes to 
fully specify the FEC encoding, for hardware assisted en/de/coding. I 
thought this may be important. On the right track?

thanks ,
robert

On 12/20/2015 09:33 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
> Ok, let me make one last change to this 7 byte alternate proposal for 
> the message specification. In the first 3 bytes with 4 fields, use 
> supersymmetry to specify 6bits per field. SO the alternate would look 
> like below...
>
> The whole point of the multicast symbol is to provide for low-level 
> routers to not even have to decode the asn.1 header and distinguish 
> all our message and header types. Just grab the first byte and mask 
> the upper 6bits and shift, there is a destination specifier, at least 
> in the large, as an alternate tunneling capability and would support 
> reuse of 4byte IP addresses for NAT.  If we loose that and knock 
> sanguinity back to 2bits, then we are down to a 6 byte spec + 
> payload.  I'm mulling iot over, obviously.
>
> *msgSpec: 7 bytes binary encoded*
>
>   * HeaderSpecification: 3 bytes
>       o multicastSymbol: 6 bits
>       o sanguinity: 6 bits
>       o msgVersion: 6 bits
>       o hdrType: 6 bits
>   * msgSize: 2nd word, 4 bytes
>       o 4 bytes (total size with msgSpec, header, payload sizes)
>
>
>
> -- 
> . .. .. ^,^ robert

-- 
. .. .. ^,^ robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20151220/d06b60c4/attachment.htm


More information about the Vm-dev mailing list