Re: about violation of standards

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/04/2019 à 21:49, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:59 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     In private conversation this debate happened:
> 
>     is an implementation that uses fe80:1::2 address on an interface a
>     violation of standards? (RFC 4291 does not allow for '1' to be there).
> 
> 
> <AD Hat on>
> 
> Yes. It is certainly a violation of the standards.
> 
> 
>     My point of view is that as long as that mplementation is widely used,
>     that is not a violation of standards.  Rather, the situation makes it
>     that that standard is not in agreement with implementations.
> 
> 
> If you think this is the case, the right way to do it is to fix the 
> standards. I do have a feeling that your implementation is an outlier 
> here. If you can point to a "widely used" implementation that does it 
> please do share.

It is not _my_ implementation.  What is mine is the addressing 
architecture that uses fe80:1::1.

The implementation is linux.  Linux is in widespread use.  Anybody with 
linux can type ifconfig eth0 add fe80:1::1.

I think that command is not a violation of standards.

The only thing that may contradict someone's mind when typing that 
command is the 54 0 bits in RFC4291 (because ifconfig says '1' instead 
of 0).

I wonder whether this answers your invitation to share.

(and I do not know what is an 'outlier').

Alex

> 
> Thanks
> Suresh