RE: is that inconsistent in RFC4291?

2006-04-26 Thread Gray, Eric
: ipv6@ietf.org --> Subject: 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 --> --> ---

Re: is that inconsistent in RFC4291?

2006-04-26 Thread Brian Haberman
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

is that inconsistent in RFC4291?

2006-04-26 Thread Lawrence Zou
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: