Re: [16NG] Review comments on draft-ietf- 16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-00
" 林珂 " <linkejacob@163.com> Thu, 04 January 2007 02:21 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1H2IEB-000716-LY; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:21:11 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2IEA-0006zm-7N
for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:21:10 -0500
Received: from m13-160.163.com ([220.181.13.160])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2IE7-0008BP-U7
for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:21:10 -0500
Received: from 192.168.193.191(202.120.37.2, 192.168.208.44) (
192.168.193.191(202.120.37.2, 192.168.208.44)
[192.168.193.191(202.120.37.2, 192.168.208.44)] ) by webmail-app17
(Coremail) ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:21:03 +0800 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <459C648F.000021.30893@bj163app17.163.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:21:03 +0800 (CST)
From: "=?gb2312?B?wdbn5g==?=" <linkejacob@163.com>
To: "16ng@ietf.org" <16ng@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [16NG] Review comments on draft-ietf-
16ng-ip-over-ethernet-over-802.16-00
X-Priority: 1
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.193.191(202.120.37.2, 192.168.208.44)]
X-Mailer: <!-- CoreMail Version 3.1_dev Copyright (c) 2002-2007
www.mailtech.cn --> 163com
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
<mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
<mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1806890486=="
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
4.4. Discovery of MAC addresses ... BS can construct link local address of each SS from adding prefix "FE80::/64" to last 24 bits of MAC address corresponding to the each SS and also derive solicited-node MAC address of each SS from prefix "33-33-FF" and last 24 bits of each SS's MAC address. I think the link local address of each SS by adding prefix FE80::/64 to last 24 bits of MAC address corresponding to the each SS couldn't assure that the link-local address is unique. In addition, "33-33-FF" prefix also couldn't make MAC address unique. Is these multicast address? I also think link-local address is for IPv6, why should IPv4 has link-local address?
_______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng