Re: about violation of standards

[Kerry Lynn <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:13 PM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > In the case of 6LoWPAN HC1 compression, it is assumed the 54 bits
> following
> > fe80::/10 are zero, which, in turn, allows the lower 64 bits of the IPv6
> > address to
> > be elided for all 6lo data links that I'm familiar with.
> >
> > I suppose one could argue that for link-local traffic, all the nodes
> > could agree
> > that fe80:1::/64 is the local convention, but 1) don't then claim
> > conformance with
> > HC1 header compression and 2) prepare to write your own sniffer.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.
>
> In another foo (not 6LoWPAN) some nodes agree with fe80:1::.  This does
> not disturb 6lowpan links.
>
> If you're referring to a 6lo foo proposal, I'd like to know which one.
If you're not, I probably don't care so much what you do ;-)

In this sense, I think it can not be said that fe80:1::/32 violates
> anything in 6lowpan.
>
> My point is simply don't expect to use the LOWPAN dispatch header or
header compression methods.

Kerry

This is why I do not understand the suggestion.
>
> Alex
>
> >
> > Kerry
>