You read me wrong Guangpeng. I’m advocating for multiple NSA L2 addresses to reflect redundancy in the network.
And a single IP address that remains even if the network changes and maps all the MAC addresses. The consequence is that the IP must not derive from MAC. Though I agree with Michael that privacy for Ring’s case may not be an issue, the device needs a permanent address and that cannot be one that depends on the current topology. Regards, Pascal > Le 22 août 2022 à 11:04, Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) > <liguangpeng=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> a écrit : > > Hello Pascal, > > Please see inline. > > Best Regards, > Guangpeng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:18 PM >> To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) >> <liguangp...@huawei.com> >> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>; 6lo <6lo@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of >> draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 >> >> Hello Guangpeng >> >> If we take the DC sensors as use case and racks are organized in trees, and >> you >> add a new rack then there will be renumbering. > > No, it doesn't. Just attach this new rack to existing racks and don't move > existing racks to this new rack meanwhile. The latter action is weird and > superfluous. > >> >> This is why it’s safer to use this tech at L2. For the better and the worse >> IoT >> standards happen to use the IP address as a node ID. I was there when ISA 100 >> made that decision and I understand why. I see the same arguments applying >> in list constrained environments. >> >> Now say that NSA is an L2 address or an L2.5 address. You get redundancy by >> allowing a node to have more than one L2 address. Renumbering is OK by >> reassigning Mac/IP matches - though it has to be done carefully/transactional >> my as MACs are reassigned. >> > This is why the NSA mechanism try hard to avoid renumbering even sacrifice > the applicability of basic mechanism in wireless network. Here, NSA is part > of IPv6, hence it indeed a L3 address. So, I can not understand why NSA would > map to multiple L2 addresses. > >> Do it at L3 and you’re screwed. >> > BTW, I think derive IPv6 from L2 is not a reliable assumption considering > privacy issues and fake MAC problems. This is why we need develop a short L3 > address in 6lo. >> >> Regards, >> >> Pascal >> >>> Le 22 août 2022 à 04:37, Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology >> Laboratory) <liguangpeng=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification. Please see below: >>>> If I insert a new device in the tree, then all of the tree below that >>>> device has to renumber. >>> Technically saying, it may exist but it seems weird to insert a new device >>> in >> the middle of the tree. When a user wants a new device, a normal way is >> append them to the network at the end of an existing rank. Totally, you >> mentioned a topology change manually, for which we put a sentence in >> Section 9 of the draft to hightlight this consideration. >>> >>>> I also think that it can happen if I add a new device to an existing rank. >>> No, as long as there is enough address for this new device. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Guangpeng >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:07 AM >>>> To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) >>>> <liguangp...@huawei.com> >>>> Cc: Alexander Pelov <a...@ackl.io>; 6lo <6lo@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of >>>> draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 >>>> >>>> >>>> "Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)" wrote: >>>>> Thanks for share of Carpenter's draft. I fully agree with the >>>>> content of it after a quick read. I think it's for all adoption >>>>> process, not only for this adoption call. I believe 6lo Chairs' >>>>> professional actions. >>>> >>>>> About the technical related concern: >>>>>> One concern that I have with NSA is that I think the network can >>>>>> get renumbered whenever there are new devices. >>>> >>>>> Can you explain a little more on how this problem happens? >>>> >>>> If I insert a new device in the tree, then all of the tree below that >>>> device has to renumber. >>>> I also think that it can happen if I add a new device to an existing rank. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT >> consulting ) >>>> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6lo mailing list >>> 6lo@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
