RE: is that inconsistent in RFC4291?

Brian, This could be taken two ways: either (portions of) the RFC must be assumed to be meaningless except in the context of prior discussions on the E-Mail list (hence, only somebody who has read the entirety of the IPv6 mailing list is qualified to read and ask questions about this RF

Re: RFC 4291: Questions about Anycast Addresses

Hi, "The Subnet-Router anycast address is predefined. Its format is as follows: | n bits | 128-n bits | +++ | subnet prefix| 00 | +

Re: is that inconsistent in RFC4291?

Here is a link to the mailing list archive where this discussion has occurred before: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05628.html Regards, Brian On Apr 26, 2006, at 5:53, Lawrence Zou wrote: 2.4. Address Type Identification define the link-local prefix as fe80::/10,Is

RFC 4291: Questions about Anycast Addresses

Hi, I read again the RFC 4291 and I have a question regarding the anycast address format. The RFC says: "The Subnet-Router anycast address is predefined. Its format is as follows: | n bits | 128-n bits | +--

is that inconsistent in RFC4291?

2.4. Address Type Identification define the link-local prefix as fe80::/10,Is that mean addresses such as fe80:1::1 is a linklocal address? but 2.5.6. Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses Link-Local addresses are for use on a single link. Link-Local addresses have the following format: