Le 15/04/2019 à 23:02, 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:48:53 +0000,
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pthubert@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> The point on multilink subnet is that link local address that is
limited to the link cannot reach all nodes in the MLSN. This illustrates
that a link and a subnet are very different beasts, whereby the former
is physical and the latter logical.
Yes, I understand that.
> The sentence that requires using a link local prefix on a subnet is
therefore non sensical and denotes a confusion between the concepts. The
text discussed below is about link not subnet.
Agreed, that's exactly why I wondered whether the intent was to say
it's NOT a multi-link subnet. But, it looks like the intent is to
just state somewhat obvious: "link-local addresses must be considered
on-link", so it's probably better not to bother discussing whether
it's a multi-link subnet or not. And then, I agree that any
link-local discussion should belong to somewhere else than the
"subnet" section.
I personally still think Section 4.3 is the best place, and combining
all of my understanding of the intent, it might read, e.g.:
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.
[2nd paragraph unchanged]
The -41 text is in the draft.
If you feel like I should change it please let me know.
I need to understand whether Pascal agrees with the text in -41.
Alex
Any other link-local addresses than those assigned to the
802.11-OCB interface MUST be considered on-link in terms of on-link
determination as defined in [RFC4861].
(The added 3rd paragraph looks too obvious to say to me, but that's
what I might say if I have to say something about it).
Anyway, again, it's just an observer's suggestion for hopefully making
it more readable without changing the author's intent. If it rather
introduce more confusion or controversy, please just ignore it.
--
JINMEI, Tatuya
