Hi Jonathan, I would vote for option 1. [ existing definition in rfc4944 -]
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. This is simple and easy to understand and compute. ND assumtion is that there is one single prefix per 6LoWPAN. If you are talking about PANs under a 6LowPAN, then I think it is too implementation specific and we don't need to standardize it at this point. So for simplicity and not adding more complexity to ND autoconfiguration, can we say that 6LoWPAN-unique-prefix::00ff:fe00:xxxx would be the IPv6-address derived from short address with the above 64-bit IID? Thanks, -Samita On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:10 AM, 6lowpan issue tracker <[email protected]> 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. > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/65> > 6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/> > > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
