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
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
-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
Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address
That ambiguity around
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
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
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com 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
Hi,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org 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
-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-local address
Hi,
On Mon, May
Hello,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thaler dtha...@microsoft.com 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,
On 5/7/12 12:40 CDT, Dan Luedtke wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thalerdtha...@microsoft.com 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
See the nanog thread starting here:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-May/048079.html
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
11 matches
Mail list logo
