Re: Is 1111 1110 10 equal to 0xfe80 or 0x3fa?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Sat, 15 June 2019 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.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 21C3C12008B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham 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 G8btlxOW02aX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 C9057120088 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x5FFCt5n036809 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:12:55 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F741202A9F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:12:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DBE202A7B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:12:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.86.23] ([132.166.86.23]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x5FFCs9b003728 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:12:54 +0200
Subject: 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>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07a63fd2-7454-95fc-dfed-b89bfa314ec5@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:12:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36vVpD9bAPSBQmhV+daR0Yr4heQ-LaiB4hABAs8ofVfNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NTILsnGI0fT157hF82gvrhK3jps>
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: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:12:59 -0000


Le 07/06/2019 à 21:47, Tom Herbert a écrit :
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:30 PM Mudric, Dusan (Dusan) <dmudric@avaya.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 10:53:28 -0700
>>> From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Is 1111 1110 10 equal to 0xfe80 or 0x3fa?
>>> Message-ID: <A722E202-7671-4111-BA92-8A67B3D3B924@gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I have prefix fe80::/10, as described in RFC 4291, the next bit is bit 11. Doing
>>> the same subdivision of the prefix is fe80::/11 and fea0::/11.
>> [Dusan] The hexadecimal definition for LL address is not syntactically correct. The binary 10 bit prefix 1111111010 cannot be presented as hexadecimal FE80::/10. It is rather a range FE80::/10 - FEBF::/10. In this notation, FE80::/10 = FEBF::/10,  because the first 10 bits are equal and other 6 should be ignored. 111 1111010 can be defined as FE80::/10 only if every time it is also mentioned that the trailing 6 bits are all zero.
> 
> By that logic, we'd have to mention that the trailing 118 bits are
> zero.  E.g. FE80::/10 == FEBD:F676:BBBB:C654:FEBD:F676:BBBB:C654/10
> also. It's obviously convenient canonical notication to express all
> the trailing bits as zeroes for a prefix, but not required. For
> instance, ifconfig shows my host address as fe80::ac2f:ea58:94a:438/64
> which in one string indicates both a fully qualified address and it's
> prefix bits.

Your system (sorry, not anything against your or your system) telling 
fe80::ac2f:ea58:94a:438/64 is relatively against IANA telling a 
link-local prefix is fe80::/10.

IANA telling the link local address is fe80::/10 is just one 
illustration.  It could have said the link-local prefix is fe81::/10 
too.  It is equally right.

RFC4291 saying 54bits are reset is against IANA saying fe80::/10 which 
lets the 54bits be anything.

Alex

> 
> Tom
> 
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>