On Mar 29, 2010, at 17:10, 6lowpan issue tracker wrote: > (0000:0000:0001:xxxx), where xxxx is the short address.
I didn't quite understand from the Discussion in Anaheim what is better about ::1:xxxx than ::ff:fe00:xxxx If we can stick to the latter, we don't really have to change 4944. In favor of preparing a lasting fix for 4944, I would make the following change to -06: > The reconstituted address is built from the 16-bit address xxxx by > > 1) computing the address: > > ::ff:fe00:xxxx > > 2) replacing the bits in this address by the bits actually given by the > prefix in the context. > > In other words, the prefix in the context overrides the address generated by > step 1. > For example, if 64-bit prefix pppp:pppp:pppp:pppp is given, the result is: > > pppp:pppp:pppp:pppp::ff:fe00:xxxx > > while if a 112-bit prefix nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn is given, the > result is: > > nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:nnnn:xxxx Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
