IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Mon, 07 May 2012 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 3C36F21F84C9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p9lzA-F8I81r for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C87F21F846E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from user-64-9-234-8.googlewifi.com (user-64-9-234-8.googlewifi.com [64.9.234.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17A1E1705A; Mon, 7 May 2012 17:08:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA0BC26723@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:07:49 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <113B5F7B-646A-4012-9F10-A994BFE39E8B@virtualized.org>
References: <20120506235919.66E7B206E4F1@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4FA77236.30109@gmail.com> <4FA77EC7.6000406@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5B6560@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA0BC26723@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 07 May 2012 17:09:00 -0000

Hi,

On May 7, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Given that, I would suggest to be very specific:

+1

> * FE80::/64 is used for configuring link local addresses;
> * FE80::/10 is reserved by the IETF. 
> * By default, implementations SHOULD discard packets received from addresses in FE80::/10 outside of FE80::/64

I personally believe the lesson we've learned from the Class E space is that this sort of reservation/direction is less useful than we might like.  

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email