Hi there. I'd be ok with both options, but the second one seems more promising. I think 17 bits for IID is more than enough and you can then put those other 111bits into good use.
Gilberto -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hui Sent: segunda-feira, 29 de Março de 2010 16:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #65: Deriving IIDs from Short Addresses In an effort to update 6lowpan-hc so that we can quickly move it back into WGLC, I'd like to close on this issue by the end of the week. Please provide your feedback. -- Jonathan Hui On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:10 AM, 6lowpan issue tracker wrote: > #65: Deriving IIDs from Short Addresses > -------------------------------- > +------------------------------------------- > Reporter: j...@ | Owner: j...@ > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: hc | Version: > Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: > -------------------------------- > +------------------------------------------- > One of the issues raised on the ML and in Anaheim is the issue of > deriving > IIDs from IEEE 802.15.4 short addresses. There was general > consensus that > the PAN ID should never be included in the IID. As such, I think we > now > have the following two options: > > 1) Maintain the RFC 4944 translation (short address -> ethernet > address -> > 64-bit IID). Generated IIDs will be 64 bits in length and of the form > (0000:00ff:fe00:xxxx), where xxxx is the short address. > > 2) Update RFC 4944 translation to (short address -> 17-bit IID). > Generated IIDs will be 17 bits in length and of the form > (0000:0000:0001:xxxx), where xxxx is the short address. > > The primary difference between the two options are the lengths of > prefixes > that may be used to generate global addresses. Option 1 says that > different PANs must be assigned unique 64-bit prefixes. Option 2 says > that different PANs must be assigned unique 111-bit prefixes, but that > multiple PANs may utilize the same 64-bit prefix. > > I am comfortable with either option, but we need to agree on one > that is > well-defined. So which would people prefer? If you have no > preference, > please provide that feedback as well. > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/65> > 6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/> _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
