On a related topic: There is still the issue of duality in IIDs. It is possible for an 802.15.4-based interface to have an IID based on its IEEE address and also its assigned short address (and possibly PAN ID depending on the outcome of the debate below), if it gets one. Stateless autoconfiguration can then be based on either. At the moment, we have sort of assumed that link-local address will be autoconfigured using the IEEE address and thus use 64-bit addressing in the MAC header and global prefix-based addresses will be autoconfigured using the 16-bit address and thus use 16-bit addresses in the MAC header. Alternatively, it can be possible to use stateful configuration of the IPv6 address but this would rely on neighbor cache and address resolution mechanism. I realise there are other valid variants here - comments?
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/> Colin O'Flynn wrote:
Hello,I don't think anything is technically broken if we leave Section 6 of RFC 4944 as is.True, as people almost always know their PAN-ID. We were seeing it as a question & interoperability problem though - some people used 0x0000 here, some people used a PAN-ID here. And Zach mentions some people using 0xFFFF.My suggestion would be to create a new section that updates Section 6 of RFC 4944 and point the text to that section.Works for me! I don't have strong feelings about if it should be PAN-ID or 0x0000 or anything else, but again I think it's critical one is picked (ideally adding to hc-06 before WGLC). 0x0000 has the advantage of being easy, and avoids any possible U/L problems. If you use PAN-ID, there will always be two PAN-IDs mapping to the same IP address (as the U/L bit is cleared). Using the PAN-ID has the advantage that we are not actually changing anything about RFC4944, just optimizing out a conditional statement thatalways evaluates to false.Regards, -Colin -----Original Message-----From: Zach Shelby [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 5, 2010 5:53 PMTo: Richard Kelsey Cc: Colin O'Flynn; [email protected] Subject: Re: [6lowpan] 6lowpan 16-bit PAN-ID Field On Mar 5, 2010, at 16:39 , Richard Kelsey wrote:In a lowpan With only a single PAN ID it makes much more sense to use zeros and avoid problems if the PAN ID has to change.+1.Or it can also be 0xFFFF (broadcast) which then allows a 16-bit MAC address of 0. This is what most people are doing in practice from what I've seen. Wouldn't hurt to have a recommendation like that in HC... Zach
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
