Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:53:17 +0300
From: Zach Shelby <[email protected]>
Richard Kelsey wrote:
> As I understand the protocol,
> if a second node appears with the same EUI64 as a device
> already in the network, the collision will not be detected
> until the existing device renews its registration. The
> first appearance of the new device will be treated as a
> reboot by the original one. Would it be OK to require that
> routers keep address data in non-volatile memory? If not,
> is the collision going to have to be re-detected every time
> the colliding device reboots?
The collision is detected immediately in that case. With
the TID you would allow the first one to continue
operating. So the newer one loses.
I don't see why it is detected immediately if the
conflicting device reboots. How are post-reboot
registrations by the conflicting device any different from
when it registers the first time?
> By the way, if two devices with the same EUI64 are powered
> up or reboot at the same time, it looks to me as if the
> conflict might never be detected. Assuming that the Edge
> Router gives them the same registration lifetimes, the two
> TIDs will move forward in leap frog fashion, never getting
> more than one removed from each other.
That could theoretically occur, any suggestions how to
avoid that?
Carsten wrote:
I thought that for a while, too. However, a registration
with the same TID is defined to cause a conflict. So if
the nodes don't manage to exactly synchronously alternate
in losing packets, eventually the conflict will be
detected.
I don't know who is right.
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
