netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:16:39 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20021010.015432.63506989.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <20021009170018.H29133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 9 Oct 2002 
> 17:00:18 +0100), Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx> says:
> 
> > All link local's are currently supposed to have those top bits
> > ('tween 10 and 64) zero'd,  however any address within the link local
> > prefix _is_ on link / connected and should go to the interface.
> > 
> > i.e. it's perfectly valid for me to assign a link local of fe80:1910::10
> >      to an interface and expect it to be work,  likewise for a packet
> >      destined to any link local address to trigger ND.
> 
> First of all, please don't use such addresses.
> 
> By spec, auto-configured link-local address is fe80::/64
> and connected route should be /64.
> 
> If you do really want to use such addresses (like fe80:1920::10),
> you can put another route by yourself, at your own risk.
> 
> We should not configure in such way by default.
> and, we should even have to add "discard" route for them 
> by default for safe.

Personally I think the interfaces should be configured with a /64 but 
there should be a discard route for the whole /10.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords


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