Re: side note RFC 4291 2nd par sec. 2.1 LL on loopback

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

 



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




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

  Powered by Linux