On 07/ 6/10 02:36 AM, Daniel Gavelle wrote:
We could also save some space by eliding the sllao and tllao from the Layer 2 MAC address. We elide addresses from the layer 2 in 6LowPAN. However, this isn't generic for all MACs so this optimisation is only valid if we are creating a 6LowPAN-ND for 15.4 networks only rather than a generic ND for LLNs.
I don't think we need TLLAO anywhere in the spec, but the document doesn't say anything about this.
We could in theory apply this to the SLLAO in NS, RS and RA. My question is whether we expect all receiver implementations to be able to get at the layer 2 address. If not, then we'd need some form of capability exchange to determine whether a receiver can handle the elided SLLAO. That would seem like lots of extra complexity.
Erik _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
