netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:02:34 +0100
Cc: sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20021009.164504.28085695.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; from davem@xxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:45:04PM -0700
References: <20021010002902.A3803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <uu1jv9o3j.wl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.164504.28085695.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 04:45:04PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>    Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:41:52 +0900
>    
>    The reason we change the prefix length  from /10 to /64 is
>    following spec and adapting other imprementations.
> 
> I think Derek's explanation shows that the specification
> allows the /10 behavior.

But as someone else pointed out (sorry I'm to lazy to check the thread),
one would still be able to manually adjust the Linux routing table to get it
into the /10 behaviour.

So frankly I'm not too fussed which behaviour is the default,  I was just
pointing out (what to me seemed to be) a change of dubious quality.

(Then letting myself get into an argument over specs - when will I learn :-)

DF


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>