Tatuya,
Le 12/04/2019 à 20:36, 神明達哉 a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:59 AM Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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).
That RFC4291 section 2.1 says:
All interfaces are required to have at least one Link-Local unicast
address (see Section 2.8 for additional required addresses).
Sidenote: I think the loopback interface does not have a link-local
address. Probably it is not all interfaces that must have at least one ll(
Alex
