I like Carsten's proposal because it enables - yet does not force- the use the 111 bits prefix. There are many places where the /64 is assumed and it's good to be able to use it when that's a constraint on the deployment.
Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 5:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #65: Deriving IIDs from Short Addresses > > 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 _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
