> Siva Veerepalli wrote: > In "2.5.6 Local-Use IPv6 Unicast Addresses", the figure shows that > the 54 bits following the first 10 bits of the link local address > are set to 0. However, it is not explicitly stated anywhere that > this is a requirement. If that is the intent, then shouldn't the LL > prefix really be FE80::/64?
The answer to this question is both yes and no at the same time. With the current use of link-locals, maybe. However, there is IMHO value in keeping the prefix as a /10 for future use. It easy to make a relation with site-local addresses (following the same logic, the prefix should be a /48). There are drafts both on the table and upcoming that propose using the extra bits for purposes that have not been envisioned at the time of the original design. > If that is not the intent, are the 54 bits following the first 10 > considered part of the prefix (subnet ID?), that can be any value > (or) is it considered part of the interface ID (but that does not > agree with b., above). Neither one. At this point in time, there is no such thing as a subnet ID for link-local addresses and the IID is 64bits long. I agree that these 54 bits are in some kind of semantic void. I guess "unused" would be a good term for now. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
