On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:59 AM Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The fe80::/10 word was removed.
So I've just checked draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-38. It now
reads:
A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles
that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). This
subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix and the interfaces
MUST be assigned IPv6 address(es) of type link-local.
Given that the use of non-0 values in the intermediate 54 bits of
link-local addresses is now out of scope of this specification, I
don't see the purpose of the second sentence.
"the interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 address(es) of type link-local"
is redundant, since it's already a part of the very basic
specification of IPv6 addressing architecture (second paragraph of
RFC4291 Section 2.1). According to a previous conversation, perhaps
it tries to re-emphasize the already-existing requirement? In that
case, I think it better belongs to Section 4.3, since the requirement
of having a link-local address is not a requirement on a subnet, but
on an interface. I'd suggest revising the first paragraph of Section
4.3 as follows:
There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that
MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. Among these types of
addresses, the interface MUST at least have one link-local IPv6
unicast address as specified in [RFC4291].. Only those link-local
addresses MAY be formed using an EUI-64 identifier, in particular
during transition time..
And, beyond this obvious requirement, it's not clear to me what this
means: "This subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix". Perhaps
it also tries to say this must be a single-link subnet (so all nodes
in the subnet can communicate each either directly using their
link-local addresses)? If so, it's better to say so explicitly, e.g:
A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles
that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). This
MUST be a single-like subnet. It means that all nodes in the
subnet must be able to communicate directly using their link-local
unicast addresses.
If there's no such special intention, I'd suggest just removing the
second sentence (with moving the requirement of having a LL address to
Section 4.3).
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
> The fe80::/10 word was removed.
So I've just checked draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-38. It now
reads:
A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles
that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). This
subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix and the interfaces
MUST be assigned IPv6 address(es) of type link-local.
Given that the use of non-0 values in the intermediate 54 bits of
link-local addresses is now out of scope of this specification, I
don't see the purpose of the second sentence.
"the interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 address(es) of type link-local"
is redundant, since it's already a part of the very basic
specification of IPv6 addressing architecture (second paragraph of
RFC4291 Section 2.1). According to a previous conversation, perhaps
it tries to re-emphasize the already-existing requirement? In that
case, I think it better belongs to Section 4.3, since the requirement
of having a link-local address is not a requirement on a subnet, but
on an interface. I'd suggest revising the first paragraph of Section
4.3 as follows:
There are several types of IPv6 addresses [RFC4291], [RFC4193], that
MAY be assigned to an 802.11-OCB interface. Among these types of
addresses, the interface MUST at least have one link-local IPv6
unicast address as specified in [RFC4291].. Only those link-local
addresses MAY be formed using an EUI-64 identifier, in particular
during transition time..
And, beyond this obvious requirement, it's not clear to me what this
means: "This subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix". Perhaps
it also tries to say this must be a single-link subnet (so all nodes
in the subnet can communicate each either directly using their
link-local addresses)? If so, it's better to say so explicitly, e.g:
A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles
that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces). This
MUST be a single-like subnet. It means that all nodes in the
subnet must be able to communicate directly using their link-local
unicast addresses.
If there's no such special intention, I'd suggest just removing the
second sentence (with moving the requirement of having a LL address to
Section 4.3).
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
