Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - 'conforming IPv6' - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Le 04/03/2019 à 12:24, Pascal Thubert a écrit :
Reviewer: Pascal Thubert
Review result: Not Ready
[...]
"

This
    subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix fe80::/10 and the
    interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 addresses of type link-local.
"
If this is conforming IPv6 then the MUST is not needed.

What do you mean by 'conforming IPv6'?

The above phrase is a clarification of existing IPv6 specs.

The spec in question is RFC 2464. I consider that to be what we need to conform to. That spec says 'fe80::/64'. But that 64 is wrong. Hence the clarification.

Do you disagree with it?

(the reasons why I put there /10 and not /64 are the following: LLs work in linux with any length between 10 and 64, the ND spec does not restrict to 64, the IANA starts at 10, and probably other reasons; there is a recent I-D about this LL prefix length: draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len-07).

Alex




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux