You said: if OCB is still 48bit, and if there is bridging OCB-Ethernet,
then no reason to be different than rfc2464.
I said: OCB is still 48bit, but there is no bridging OCB-Ethernet.
The conclusion is: there is reason to be different from RFC 2464.
Now, you give a different conclusion.
Excuse me, I would like to clarify this please?
Alex
Le 10/04/2019 à 12:28, Ole Troan a écrit :
Alexandre,
Right, so it doesn’t sound like you have any reason to be different from RFC2464.
Just reference or copy that text (section 5, rfc2464).
Ole
On 10 Apr 2019, at 11:22, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Le 10/04/2019 à 11:04, 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 bridging 802.11p and other 802.3 links?
In the IP-OBUs that I know there is IP forwarding between 802.11-OCB (earlier 802.11p) and 802.3, not bridging.
In some IP-OBU (Internet Protocol On-Board Unit) some non-OCB interfaces are indeed bridged. E.g. the Ethernet interface is bridged to the WiFi interface; that helps with DHCP, tcpdump and others to see one a single - bridged - interface.
Bridging may be, but it is not a MUST. There is no necessarily any bridging between the 802.11-OCB interface and other interface, neither bridging between the multiple 802.11-OCB interfaces that might be present in the same computer.
Do you assume bridging of 802.11-OCB interface to Ethernet interface is always there?
Note: I also heard many comments suggesting that EAL is akin to 'bridging'. I do not know whether you refer to that perspective. If yes, we can discuss it separately.
Alex
[...]
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.
Ole
_______________________________________________
Int-dir mailing list
Int-dir@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir
