Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - options for fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

>>> I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec needs to
>>> rely on the use of a non-0 value in the intermediate 54 bits", btw.
>>> If that's not the case, it's much safer and less controversial to
>>> just not mention it (either in the form of "LL prefix length" or
>>> more explicitly).  I guess that's also what others are suggesting
>>> (and I agree with them in that sense).
> 
> There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of
> IPv6 LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document.
> 
> There is the option of mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates 4291
> section X" in the header of the 1st page.
> 
> There is the option of proving by implementation that fe80:1::1/32 on
> OCB is not harmful to others.

Two of these options will likely prohibit consensus being reqched on this document.
I encourage you to carefully consider how to best spend your time and the time of the particpants in the involved set of working groups.

Ole