On 11/29/12 4:51 PM, Matsuzaki Yoshinobu wrote:
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.
Agree. Thanks,
-- Becca
-----
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
