Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - 'conforming IPv6' - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 10/04/2019 à 10:22, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>> "At least" does not mean "the value should be at least 10" in that phrase.
>>>
>>> Do you think we should say otherwise?
>>
>> To me there is nothing in the actual text to tell me that "at least"
>> qualifies the "/10". I think you could rephrase as
>> "This subnet's prefix MUST lie within the link-local prefix fe80::/10 ..."
>>
>> However, see Jinmei's messages about conformance with RFC 4291.
>>
>> I think there might be unexpected side effects from using an
>> address like fe80:1::1. What if some code uses matching with
>> fe80::/64 to test if an address is link-local? I agree that
>> would be faulty code, but you would be the first to discover it.
> 
> Indeed.
> If you absoultely must cut and paste text from 2464:

YEs, that is how we started.  We cut and paste from 2464.

> 
> 5.  Link-Local Addresses
> 
> 
>     The IPv6 link-local address [AARCH] for an Ethernet interface is
>     formed by appending the Interface Identifier, as defined above, to
>     the prefix FE80::/64.
> 
>         10 bits            54 bits                  64 bits
>       +----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
>       |1111111010|         (zeros)       |    Interface Identifier    |
>       +----------+-----------------------+----------------------------+
> 
> 
> I presume there is support for brining 802.11p and other 802.3 links?

I not understand the question?  Please clarify what do you mean 
(bringing, binning?)  This is for 802.11 mode OCB.  802.11p no longer 
exists.  802.3 does not need a spec because it has rfc2464.

The interface 802.11-OCB is not an 802.3 interface.

Let me try to understand what do you mean?

> And that the MAC address length of this link type is also 48 bits?

YEs, the length of MAC address on 802.11 mode OCB is also 48.

> If the two assumptions above hold, then I see zero justification for pushing the 64 bit boundary in this draft.

Let me try  to understand the first assumption.

Alex

> 
> Ole
>