Re: about violation of standards

[Yucel Guven <[e-mail]>]

> Every interface also had another prefx, fe80:ifindex::/64, configured.
> This prefix is also link-local because it's from within fe80::/10.

Can you compare rfc4291-sec.2.5.6  with  your sentences above
and say that it complied to it?

-Yucel






On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:46 PM Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I not sure I see any standards violation and therefore I don't see any
> need to update any standards.
>
> Every interface had the default link-local prefix assigned (fe80::/64).
> No problem.
>
> Every interface also had another prefx, fe80:ifindex::/64, configured.
> This prefix is also link-local because it's from within fe80::/10.
>
> I see no problem here.  I don't see that any standards need to be updated,
> bis'ed, amended, or tweaked.
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 08:05, Yucel Guven <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Nothing prevents me, I'm sure it also works with other linux
>> distributions.
>>
>> But, do you mean that it worked in your linux,
>> and in fact "RFC is not compatible" with your machine's OS?
>>
>> Then;
>> What prevents you from opening your word processor
>> and from proposing/writing your ideas
>> into a document that is called a 'draft'?
>>
>>>
>>>>