Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote >> Original Text >> ------------- >> (b) Addresses in which the rightmost 64 bits are assigned the >> highest 128 values (i.e., ffff:ffff:ffff:ff7f to ffff:ffff:ffff: >> ffff) SHOULD NOT be used as unicast addresses, to avoid >> colliding with reserved subnet anycast addresses [RFC2526]. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> (b) Addresses in which the rightmost 64 bits are assigned the >> highest 128 values (i.e., ffff:ffff:ffff:ff80 to ffff:ffff:ffff: >> ffff) SHOULD NOT be used as unicast addresses, to avoid >> colliding with reserved subnet anycast addresses [RFC2526]. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> The highest 128 values start at ffff:ffff:ffff:ff80, not ffff:ffff:ffff:ff7f. > > the erratum looks correct to me
yes, agreed. ----- Matsuzaki Yoshinobu <m...@iij.ad.jp> - IIJ/AS2497 INOC-DBA: 2497*629 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
