Hi Jonathan
I prefer option 1.
I still believe this should be paired with a 112 bit prefix and not 64-bit
prefix as you suggest
-Joseph
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
