Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address
Alex Zinin <zinin@PSG.COM> Thu, 20 February 2003 17:34 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22323 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:34:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <23.008F727F@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:38:03 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 655531 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:38:03 -0500
Received: from 147.28.0.62 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:38:03 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 18lue1-000CyZ-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:38:01 -0800
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A328791F33@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com> <3E54F7E9.7000906@redback.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <1054013166.20030220093750@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:37:50 -0800
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@PSG.COM>
Subject: Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address
Comments: To: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <3E54F7E9.7000906@redback.com>
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
BTW, maybe adding an entry to the RFC errata (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html) would be a good idea? -- Alex Thursday, February 20, 2003, 7:44:41 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > I'll keep track of these updates in case we decide to re-spin > RFC 2740. > Thanks, > Acee > Manral, Vishwas wrote: >> Hi Yasu, >> >> You are right about "FE80" part of it. Good catch !!! >> >> However two small corrections in what you said. The 11th to the 64th bit are >> all 0's(54 bits in all). Besides even in the latest architecture draft >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt >> >> Link-local unicast is still defined as >> >> Link-local unicast 1111111010 FE80::/10 2.5.6 >> >> Check section 2.4 >> >> Thanks, >> Vishwas >>
- typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address Yasuhiro Ohara
- Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast addr… Manral, Vishwas
- Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast addr… Acee Lindem
- Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast addr… Alex Zinin