Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - options for fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

[...]
>> I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec needs to
>> rely on the use of a non-0 value in the intermediate 54 bits", btw.
>> If that's not the case, it's much safer and less controversial to
>> just not mention it (either in the form of "LL prefix length" or
>> more explicitly).  I guess that's also what others are suggesting
>> (and I agree with them in that sense).

There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of
IPv6 LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document.

There is the option of mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates 4291
section X" in the header of the 1st page.

There is the option of proving by implementation that fe80:1::1/32 on
OCB is not harmful to others.

Alex