Le 10/04/2019 à 10:22, Ole Troan a écrit :
"At least" does not mean "the value should be at least 10" in that phrase.
Do you think we should say otherwise?
To me there is nothing in the actual text to tell me that "at least"
qualifies the "/10". I think you could rephrase as
"This subnet's prefix MUST lie within the link-local prefix fe80::/10 ..."
However, see Jinmei's messages about conformance with RFC 4291.
I think there might be unexpected side effects from using an
address like fe80:1::1. What if some code uses matching with
fe80::/64 to test if an address is link-local? I agree that
would be faulty code, but you would be the first to discover it.
Indeed.
If you absoultely must cut and paste text from 2464:
YEs, that is how we started. We cut and paste from 2464.
5. Link-Local Addresses
The IPv6 link-local address [AARCH] for an Ethernet interface is
formed by appending the Interface Identifier, as defined above, to
the prefix FE80::/64.
10 bits 54 bits 64 bits
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
|1111111010| (zeros) | Interface Identifier |
+----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
I presume there is support for brining 802.11p and other 802.3 links?
I not understand the question? Please clarify what do you mean
(bringing, binning?) This is for 802.11 mode OCB. 802.11p no longer
exists. 802.3 does not need a spec because it has rfc2464.
The interface 802.11-OCB is not an 802.3 interface.
Let me try to understand what do you mean?
And that the MAC address length of this link type is also 48 bits?
YEs, the length of MAC address on 802.11 mode OCB is also 48.
If the two assumptions above hold, then I see zero justification for pushing the 64 bit boundary in this draft.
Let me try to understand the first assumption.
Alex
Ole
