On Aug 23, 2010, at 16:17, Peter Bigot wrote: > When I first read the HC drafts, I interpreted "context" to permit > external knowledge, such as the fact that context 7 that I used it > told me to construct the IPv6 address from a locally stored constant > that was not part of any ND message. Whether to pad with zeros or > with FF:FE000 smells like this sort of external knowledge.
Generally, we have tried for each context to take the form of a prefix (a number of bits plus that number). More complex contexts are possible, but we'd also like to be able to distribute them using 6lowpan-ND. > Will it be required that padding be done this way for a 64-bit context > and 16-bit short address, or merely allowed? Is padding-with-zeroes > as an equally valid interpretation of the context? Not for the contexts I'm talking about. > Does this freedom > to interpret apply to other context lengths where the prefix length > plus the address length does not equal 128? > > Can I say that context 7 in a network I control means ignore any > provided prefix and use a hard-coded constant 112-bit prefix, if I > have some reason to believe this makes sense in my deployment > environment? Probably, but then you can't distribute that context using 6lowpan-ND. Or, in other words, you can only use nodes that already have that knowledge. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
