Subject: [ipwave] fe80::/64 vs fe80::/10

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:05:35 +0200

Hi IPWAVErs,

The draft IPv6-over-OCB has a section describing how to form Link-Local
addresses.  It refers to the method described in RFC2464, which suggests
prepending the prefix FE80::/64.

However, RFC4291 "IPv6 Addressing Architecture" states that the IPv6
notation for Link-Local addresses is "FE80::/10".

I think this should be clarified.

I suggest this modification in the draft IPv6-over-OCB:

OLD:
> The link-local address of an 802.11-OCB interface is formed in the 
> same manner as on an Ethernet interface.  This manner is described
> in section 5 of [RFC2464].

NEW:
> The link-local address of an 802.11-OCB interface is formed in the 
> same manner as on an Ethernet interface.  This manner is described
> in section 5 of [RFC2464]; the prefix is "FE80::/10" as noted in
> section 2.4 of [RFC4291].  The bits in positions 11, 12 and up to 64
> are set to 0.

Alex

---

From: Nabil Benamar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:29:49 +0100

Hi Alex,

the FE80::/10 is a range of addresses rather than an IPv6 @.

So ALL addresses with the first Hextet between FE80 and FEBF are valid
Link-local address.

Best regards
Nabil Benamar
-------------------
نبيل بنعمرو

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The link-local address of an 802.11-OCB interface is formed in the same
>> manner as on an Ethernet interface.  This manner is described
>> The link-local address of an 802.11-OCB interface is formed in the same
>> manner as on an Ethernet interface.  This manner is described
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:41:22 +0200

> the FE80::/10 is a range of addresses rather than an IPv6 @.

By "IPv6 @" I think you mean "IPv6 address".

> So ALL addresses with the first Hextet between FE80 and FEBF are
> valid Link-local address.

I agree with you.  So, RFC2464 does not allow for other link-local
addresses than those starting with FE80.  It does not allow, for
example, for link-local addresses that start with FEBF, even though
RFC4291 does allow them.

Do we want IPv6-over-OCB to allow link-local addresses in the entire
range from FE80 to FEBF (as RFC4291 suggests)?

Or do we want to restrain IPv6-over-OCB to link-local addresses of FE80
form?

Depending on this we may formulate a clarification text.
(in the former case we can write "fe80::/10" whereas in the latter we
can write "fe80::/10 followed by 54 zeros")

Alex