Subject: Re: typo in RFC2740 about link-local unicast address

From: "Manral, Vishwas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:35:33 -0500

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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
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

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:44:41 -0500

I'll keep track of these updates in case we decide to re-spin
RFC 2740.

Thanks,
Acee

--
Acee

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:37:50 -0800

BTW, maybe adding an entry to the RFC errata
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html) would be
a good idea?

--
Alex