|
Hi Juan Carlos:
Thanks for providing the link.
I had a brief look at the presentation by Pat Thaler (first
weblink below):
1) Slide 5:
Somehow, I still do not understand the need for partitioning of
the address space, where part is for "local administration". This
seems to be the crux of the 24/24 address partitioning debate
triggered by the 802.c PAR, so important to understand better.
What is the concern/use case that I am missing?
2) Slide 12:
Pseudo-random address generation with 24 bits of freedom easily
leads to clashes well before ~1000 devices (due to the so-called
birthday paradox);
Partitioning of address space accross multiple servers, with
pre-assigned ranges, seems wasteful, since in practice the
requirements per server may not be the same.
Overall, it is hard to see what the downside would be to having
pseudo-random addresses of 48 (well: 46 bits) in the sketched
scenario, except perhaps for network segregation. If address
generation is local (ethernet in cars, etc.) and messaging would
use authentication, one does not need to worry about this
segregation issue. Moreover, (as Dan Harkins already pointed out
before), the probability of clashes is quite low with 46 bits of
freedom for pseudo-random address generation. One can implement
DAD or use server-allocation addresses (Slide 15) to mitigate
potential clashes, should these still occur.
3) Slide 17:
Not sure whether one does not need a unique id for IoT devices. In
many settings, one may want this, e.g., for white listing and
configuration purposes. This does not have to be a burned in
address at manufacturing, since recoverability hereof by the
device, e.g., at start-up, does suffice. So, even if one has a
unique id, this does not necessarily result in increased
manufacturing cost.
Best regards, Rene
On 10/22/2014 3:02 PM, Zuniga, Juan Carlos wrote:
--
email: rstruik.ext@xxxxxxxxx | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363
|