On Mar 31, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

It seems that there is good enough support for 'ff:fe'

(ff:fe00 due to the way this is put in the middle of two 24-bit fields.)

Of course the fully expanded version of the IID would be 0000:00ff:fe00:xxxx.

As discussed before, 6lowpan-hc can no longer simply point to Section 6 of RFC 4944 since the PAN ID is no longer used.

As far as I can see, HC does not have to change 4944 at all.
HC with the results of this discussion simply is more efficient if the 4944 conditional "if no PAN ID is known, 16 zero bits may be used" is true.

From prior discussions on the list, the result of 802.15.4-2003 is that the PAN ID is always known so the case where no PAN ID is known is never true.

So I see no need for either:

I see two approaches:

1) 6lowpan-hc updates Section 6 of RFC 4944 to indicate how an IID is generated from a 802.15.4 short address.

2) 6lowpan-hc becomes self contained by saying how to expand a 802.15.4 short address into an IID (note the slightly different choice of wording). An update to RFC 4944 would be left for another draft (presumably the ND draft).

Instead, I would say:

Note: This form of compression only addresses the case where instead of a PAN ID, 16 zero bits are used according to section 6 of RFC 4944. This case appears to be the common implementation practice for RFC 4944. If, however, a PAN ID is used, only the case SAM=01/ DAM=01 can be used to obtain some compression.


Unclear whether setting the PAN ID to zero is the common implementation practice. This issue came about due to interoperability concerns. The conclusion from that thread was that the PAN ID is always known and so you should never assume zero for those bits. Of course, that spawned additional concerns about the use of PAN ID in the first place, leading to where we are today.

At this point, I would prefer to include a short section within 6lowpan-hc that simply says how to reform the IID from an IEEE 802.15.4 short or extended address to make the HC draft self contained and decouple it from RFC 4944.

--
Jonathan Hui

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

Reply via email to