> From: "Colin O'Flynn" <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 12:14:50 -0000
>
> Using the PAN-ID has the advantage that we are not actually changing
> anything about RFC4944, just optimizing out a conditional statement that
> always evaluates to false.
But then what do you do if the PAN ID changes in response
to a conflict?
We seem to have the following issues to contend with:
- The option of using either the PAN ID or 0x0000 can
lead to interoperability problems.
- The PAN ID is not necessarily constant over time.
- If a subnet has multiple PANs, setting the U/L bit to
zero may cause distinct PAN IDs to collide.
- 0x0000 doesn't allow the use of the 0x0000 short address.
- 0xFFFF has the wrong value for the U/L bit.
For subnets that have only a single PAN, the simplest solution
would be to use a fixed value non-zero value, such as 0x0001
or 0xFDFF (assuming I have the U/L bit in the right place).
For subnets with multiple PANs, if we want to support them,
either 16-bit addresses need to be unique across the subnet
or there has to be a way to distribute the "PAN ID" to be
used in forming interface IDs. The former seems
conceptually simpler, and would allow 0x0001 (or 0xFDFF or
whatever value is chosen) to be used everywhere.
-Richard
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
