> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:44 PM > To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory) > <liguangp...@huawei.com> > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; 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: > >> -----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. > > no, what you suggest is weird. > More cables and more tangles. > (I still operate systems in cabinets in data centres) > Are you still discussing about renumbering? A little confusing.
> >> 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. > > Given a wired situation of sensors in a data center, I have no privacy > concerns. > If we are talking about 100baseT1, then I also have no concern with packet > size. > > -- > 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
