IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address

Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Thu, 20 February 2003 15:37 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 KAA18213 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:37:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <9.008F6D88@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:41:23 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 655056 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:41:23 -0500
Received: from 155.53.12.9 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:41:23 -0500
Received: from redback.com (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.60]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E054925184B for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:41:21 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A328791F33@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3E54F7E9.7000906@redback.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:44:41 -0500
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
Subject: Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yasuhiro Ohara [mailto:yasu@SFC.WIDE.AD.JP]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
> Subject: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address
>
>
> In RFC 2740 section 2.5 "Use of link-local addresses" I might have
> found a typo ...
>
>    IPv6 link-local addresses are for use on a single link, for purposes
>    of neighbor discovery, auto-configuration, etc. IPv6 routers do not
>    forward IPv6 datagrams having link-local source addresses [Ref15].
>    Link-local unicast addresses are assigned from the IPv6 address range
>    FF80/10.
>
> Link-local unicast addresses are fe80::/64, aren't they ?
> E -> F may be typo, but the prefix length may be a consideration.
> # RFC2373 says that bits from 11th to 54th in link-local unicast address
> # must be zero.
>
> Sorry if it's already pointed out.
>
> regards,
> yasu
>


--
Acee

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email