Hi Alex,In general, I think if you consider the term "EUI-64 address" as shorthand for "IEEE EUI-64-based address" (or even just "IEEE address") and scope the context of the term to link layer addresses then it makes sense.
Further comments below, bracketed by <RCC></RCC>. Robert Robert Cragie (Pacific Gas & Electric) Gridmerge Ltd. 89 Greenfield Crescent, Wakefield, WF4 4WA, UK +44 (0) 1924 910888 http://www.gridmerge.com <http://www.gridmerge.com/> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
<RCC>Strictly speaking, an EUI-64 identifier is an identifier. In IEEE 802.15.4 it is also used as a link-layer address, therefore has a dual purpose for that type of link layer</RCC>6LoWPANners, I believe I have another complain about the RFC 4944. Yes, we are not modifying RFC4944 neither here nor now. However, I have been referred to it several times while discussing the current WG items. For example, in private and in public I have been told that RFC 4944 says "EUI-64 address". Or, I am used to EUI-64 being not an address but an identifier. RFC 2464 mentions it as an "EUI-64 identifier", or "Interface Identifier". It never calls it an "EUI-64 address".
<RCC>So this is almost correct - perhaps "IEEE EUI-64-based address" might be more accurate. But it is always used in the context of a link layer address.</RCC>RFC 4944 mentions it as an "EUI-64 address" in some places: rfc4944:All 802.15.4 devices have an IEEE EUI-64 address, but 16-bit short addresses (Section 3 and Section 12) are also possible.
<RCC>Again, if you take this as "IEEE EUI-64-based address" then it makes sense to me.</RCC>[...]Length: This is the length of this option (including the type and length fields) in units of 8 octets. The value of this field is 2 ifusing EUI-64 addresses, or 1 if using 16-bit short addresses.It's very difficult to understand it ok.
<RCC>Again, I think this is only used in the context of link layer address so I am not sure if the distinction is needed.</RCC>I am used for an address to be unique, otherwise it's not very good. But an identifier is not necessarily unique, it's good, and it has that g bit to distinguish it being unique or not. Now that you read up to here, also understand my complain about RFC 4944 reading "short address". Instead, I would like it to say "short MAC address" throughout. This would have saved me much misunderstandings in many discussions in 6LoWPAN and RoLL.
Thank you, Alex _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
