On 5/7/12 12:40 CDT, Dan Luedtke wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
MUST NOT would seem to match the intent of the original
RFCs which say:
" Routers must not forward any packets with link-local source or
destination addresses to other links."
Got it now,
Hello,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
> MUST NOT would seem to match the intent of the original
> RFCs which say:
> " Routers must not forward any packets with link-local source or
> destination addresses to other links."
Got it now, thanks :) Yes, weakening the requiremen
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Dan Luedtke
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:21 AM
> To: David Conrad
> Cc: Christian Huitema; 6man
> Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-
Hi,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> * FE80::/64 is used for configuring link local addresses;
>> * FE80::/10 is reserved by the IETF.
>> * By default, implementations SHOULD discard packets received from addresses
>> in FE80::/10 outside of FE80::/64
> I personally believe
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2012, at 9:57 AM, "Christian Huitema" wrote:
>>> Link-Local Unicast Addresses 1110 10 1/1024
>>> Site-Local Unicast Addresses 1110 11 1/1024
>> ...
>> So they define the /10 as the link local *prefix*, within which any
>> *addresse
Hi,
On May 7, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Given that, I would suggest to be very specific:
+1
> * FE80::/64 is used for configuring link local addresses;
> * FE80::/10 is reserved by the IETF.
> * By default, implementations SHOULD discard packets received from addresses
> in
>> Link-Local Unicast Addresses 1110 10 1/1024
>> Site-Local Unicast Addresses 1110 11 1/1024
>...
> So they define the /10 as the link local *prefix*, within which any
> *addresses* have to fall into the /64.
> The rest of the /10 is unused but is still defined as
all into the /64.
The rest of the /10 is unused but is still defined as link-local
scope.
-Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 12:51 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
>
That ambiguity around the prefix length /10 vs /64 of a link-local
address should be clarified.
If clarified, among other advantages, it would allow to write C code
which, when typing "ifconfig eth0 add fe80::1" it would know to fill in
the prefix length by itself, and not wonder about which len
On 2012-05-07 00:59, Mark Andrews wrote:
> See the nanog thread starting here:
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-May/048079.html
>
I'm sure the intention was to reserve the entire /10 prefix
but it's correct that the RFC is not clear about this.
Seems like an erratum is
10 matches
Mail list logo
