Re: about violation of standards

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 25/04/2019 à 18:46, Erik Kline a écrit :
> I not sure I see any standards violation and therefore I don't see any 
> need to update any standards.

Let me show this: RFC4291 requires 54 0 bits between fe80::/10 and 
fe80::IID/64.

Do you see a problem in this?

> Every interface had the default link-local prefix assigned (fe80::/64).  
> No problem.

Right.

> Every interface also had another prefx, fe80:ifindex::/64, configured.  

ifindex is the Interface Index?

I need the Subnet ID there, not the Interface Index.

The Interface Index of eth1 on a PC is '1' and distinct than the 
Interface Index of eth2 on another PC, both in same Ethernet.

One couldnt ping fe80:1::1/64 from fe80:2::1/64 on the same Ethernet cable.

Alex

> 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] 
> <mailto:[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'?
> 
>