IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 07 May 2012 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD08A21F84D3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 00:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOniKR-ZP3vw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 00:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B019C21F84B3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 00:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id q477oYCL020840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 09:50:35 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q477oY12031660 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 09:50:34 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id q477oVG2021031 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 09:50:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA77EC7.6000406@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 09:50:31 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address
References: <20120506235919.66E7B206E4F1@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4FA77236.30109@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA77236.30109@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 07:50:37 -0000

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 length should it be.

Alex

Le 07/05/2012 08:56, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> 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 needed.
>
> Brian
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email