On Aug 21, 2010, at 13:45, Colin O'Flynn wrote: > putting in 6lowpan-ND that you must send from an address based on the EUI-64
(I assume, this is for 6LoWPAN-ND transactions that register/DAD a 16-bit address.) One of the decisions we made on the way from ND-08 to ND-09 was to simplify the protocol by basing more of it on the assumption of uniqueness of the EUI-64 address. Your proposal therefore seems like a logical consequence, as it seems it indeed simplifies things more. But let's consider what we lose: -- the use of privacy addresses in this capacity. Since we already need to have the EUI-64 exposed to do DAD, I see little loss. -- the use of CGA (cryptographically generated addresses) in this capacity. Well, maybe not. Since a CGA SHOULD be about as unique as an EUI-64, it MIGHT be a good substitute if the keys are generated with the same care that we think EUI-64s are instilled. -- any other scheme that really wants to use a different kind of address for uniqueness. I haven't formed an opinion yet -- I'm still in the process of trying to understand the trade-offs. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
