Regarding option 1:
If the goal is to create a pseudo-EUI64 from the 16-bit address. Should
be concerned about using Xerox's OUI in the first three octets? The OUI
is something that got trampled in RFC4944's (short address -> IID)
conversion. Perhaps an IID of the form ACDE:4800::xxxx would make a
better IID. The AC-DE-48 in this case is the "private" OUI. We could
even apply to the IEEE (or is it IANA that handles this?) to reserve an
OUI specifically for 6LoWPAN IID's so that we know they won't conflict
with other devices on the PAN.
Regarding option 2:
Is there any concern that 17-bit IID's might conflict with 64-bit EUI's?
If one device has the short address 0x0000, and the other has the long
address 00-00-00-00-00-01-00-00, then wouldn't they both wind up using
the same link-local address FE80::1:0000?
I prefer option 1, since it's easier to tell which address type the IID
was derived from.
Thanks,
Owen Kirby
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.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
