IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Link Local Addresses [was Re: Is 1111 1110 10 equal to 0xfe80 or 0x3fa?]

Ola Thoresen <ola@nlogic.no> Thu, 13 June 2019 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ola@nlogic.no>
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 66CF012007C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lksfBjJjxBo5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nytt.no (poseidon.nytt.no [178.62.243.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FBD8120041 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from olen-jobb.nlogic.no (cm-84.208.27.142.getinternet.no [84.208.27.142]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.nytt.no (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x5D716H3010260 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:01:07 +0200
Subject: Re: IPv6 Link Local Addresses [was Re: Is 1111 1110 10 equal to 0xfe80 or 0x3fa?]
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <DM6PR15MB2506E62560613C85F74A1FF8BB100@DM6PR15MB2506.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CALx6S36vVpD9bAPSBQmhV+daR0Yr4heQ-LaiB4hABAs8ofVfNQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR15MB25063BAF058C1825E2B63E30BB130@DM6PR15MB2506.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CAKQ4NaW-QRZDO52zDZTSqz_MsfrS1uQHdz6zFjo+gXvtYVnFxA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR15MB2506E06165EA22E66BBB9524BB130@DM6PR15MB2506.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <7E03089C-8429-4B56-96D6-441490C850B2@gmail.com> <B3D43A45-5E90-4D04-BA64-17150EE6D2AA@gmail.com> <0138C92A-A95A-488D-8851-9F3227D2B8B8@employees.org> <CABNhwV1hy5S-GUK-MY7OcudaYJB0j1PVgF1CG6cGa7s7Qez63w@mail.gmail.com> <C278A105-13D3-4035-AB6E-785A8E2C095D@employees.org> <CABNhwV2848Csn=5xy29Rbe_4E1fD0HSeXonBY4M+=21cK11GOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKQ4NaWTO=+aHSmBdBZv_Op0zD6iffExAHvOgzNFp5QVhahQiw@mail.gmail.com> <70B40D57-4162-4A13-AAC8-CE11E9E7BE5B@gmail.com>
From: Ola Thoresen <ola@nlogic.no>
Message-ID: <3457bc55-28ff-cf97-1dbe-90810ca6551e@nlogic.no>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:01:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <70B40D57-4162-4A13-AAC8-CE11E9E7BE5B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DDA077E70C9C55144EB96372"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EuHgsILNWSuZkRwS9xZ33G69Q5U>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:02:13 -0000

On 12.06.2019 23:08, Gyan Mishra wrote:

> (...) Cisco to Cisco networks so there is no reason for that to change 
> as the next hop is now 100% intuitive as is with IPv4 in that regard 
> and only mix environments do we have to follow the RFC for neighbor 
> adjacencies to form.
>

Oh.  I thought the whole idea behind IETF was to encourage vendor 
interoperability...



Rgds.

Ola Thoresen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email