On Mar 29, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Mar 30, 2010, at 05:36, Jonathan Hui wrote:
Typing ...::ff:fe00:xxxx is a bit ugly, granted.
If we were designing 4944 from scratch, I would buy that argument.
However, it was agreed in May 2007, and I'd like to see a better
argument to change it incompatibly.
AFAIK, there are only a handful of independent implementations that
have tested interoperability to this day and even less with the use of
short addresses. W.r.t. 6lowpan-hc there was ambiguity over whether
or not to use the PAN ID in the IID. It seems that we need to change
something to better achieve interoperability. There's already
consensus to never include the PAN ID in the IID, so an update to
Section 6 of RFC 4944 is already necessary.
I believe the vast majority of implementors are subscribed to this
list. So which of the following options do people prefer?
1) IPv6 addrs that have the form aaaa::ff:fe00:xxxx.
2) IPv6 addrs that have the form aaaa::1:xxxx.
In both cases, the prefix and IID is 64 bits. At this point it's just
a matter of how many zeros are involved. It's a minor point, so I
wouldn't dwell on this issue too long.
--
Jonathan Hui
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
