IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2019 14:30 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 DB8621200C7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 Pl0TYFvOMpcR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 A3AC2120020 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3OETxRg038387; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:29:59 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AD15A2040C6; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:29:59 +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 9D870204083; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:29:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3OETxPb000656; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:29:59 +0200
Subject: Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Yucel Guven <yucel.guven@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <bb7f7606-2adf-e669-8bcd-e41f17800782@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd9frqX5-yeVPj8MYXpZ4737HqK1gmfD9cQV3A-Ea5HrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKQ4NaWLGh3f_dN6WVNnYs9fKL8=vfpnShAK8AczPo8LE8LjFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdsJ74ajnCgvm+bWZk=m_Emdy46TKc=73sHG-sf9Czsdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0973403-960b-1136-514d-fd675e318824@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:29:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdsJ74ajnCgvm+bWZk=m_Emdy46TKc=73sHG-sf9Czsdg@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/VkoG_gLZnzikMSyWETz73s1Quj8>
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:30:04 -0000


Le 22/04/2019 à 18:15, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:37:08 +0200,
> Yucel Guven <yucel.guven@gmail.com <mailto:yucel.guven@gmail.com>> wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, such details are not the main point in this thread.  I just
> gave a concrete example of why it doesn't make sense to justify a
> broken behavior because of a "widely used implementation".  (hmm,
> actually, these two cases have some common point that may matter in
> the main context: in both cases the underlying implementation is
> "widely used", but the usage of the broken behavior should be pretty
> rare).

As a response, I would like to ask whether fe80::1/128 on lo is a 
violation of standards.

This is not a provocation.  It is for me to understand.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email