Re: about violation of standards

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

The text in that block doesn't even state that fe80::/10 is reserved for
link-local unicast, and yet -- per IANA -- it is.  The full context is
important, I feel.

What I see is:

    (a) fe80::/10 is the over-arching block allocated for link-local
unicast addresses, and

    (b) fe80::/64 is the one link-local unicast prefix guaranteed by the
standard to be assumed operable on every link.

Nothing more, nothing less.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 06:41, Yucel Guven <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Every interface also had another prefx, fe80:ifindex::/64, configured.
> > This prefix is also link-local because it's from within fe80::/10.
>
> Can you compare rfc4291-sec.2.5.6  with  your sentences above
> and say that it complied to it?
>
> -Yucel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:46 PM Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I not sure I see any standards violation and therefore I don't see any
>> need to update any standards.
>>
>> Every interface had the default link-local prefix assigned (fe80::/64).
>> No problem.
>>
>> Every interface also had another prefx, fe80:ifindex::/64, configured.
>> This prefix is also link-local because it's from within fe80::/10.
>>
>> I see no problem here.  I don't see that any standards need to be
>> updated, bis'ed, amended, or tweaked.
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 08:05, Yucel Guven <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing prevents me, I'm sure it also works with other linux
>>> distributions.
>>>
>>> But, do you mean that it worked in your linux,
>>> and in fact "RFC is not compatible" with your machine's OS?
>>>
>>> Then;
>>> What prevents you from opening your word processor
>>> and from proposing/writing your ideas
>>> into a document that is called a 'draft'?
>>>
>>