From: Rene Struik <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:44:46 -0400
One cautionary node: in my mind, secure, yet easy to use device
configuration and trust lifecycle management relies on devices to be
uniquely identified in a static way, in a vendor independent
fashion.
Sadly, as I learned on another part of this thread, it
appears that we may not be able to rely on having static,
globally-unique identifiers. Manufacturers of
counterfeit-branded devices have a disincentive to
cooperate.
As such, this assumes a globally unique name space across all
nodes. This suggests that "globally unique" is not a proper adjective
for "16-bit addresses" (unless you wish global device deployment to be
limited to 64k devices only [which I hope not...]).
"Globally unique" was indeed incorrect. I should have
said "unique within the LoWPAN" or some such.
-Richard Kelsey
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
