| To: | Yuji Sekiya <sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses |
| From: | Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:51:49 +0100 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <uu1jv9o3j.wl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from sekiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:41:52AM +0900 |
| References: | <20021009234421.J29133@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.161414.63434223.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20021010002902.A3803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <uu1jv9o3j.wl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:41:52AM +0900, Yuji Sekiya wrote: > > The reason we change the prefix length from /10 to /64 is > following spec and adapting other imprementations. I said I wouldn't comment futher on the spec issue. I know of at least one other implementation that allows any set of bits within the link local range to be specified. (Two if you include the current/previous Linux behaviour :-) Changing to restrict the allowed link local addresses doesn't _enhance_ interoperability. Leaving it as it is/was doesn't harm anything. DF |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, Yuji Sekiya |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, Yuji Sekiya |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |