Does it not seem like wastage of space? fe80::/64 can be used both for distinguishing link-locals, and in "concrete instances". As I see it, at present there is no official way to regulate, and allocate the "54" bits.
The next version of RFC 3513 can be more explicit in this regards. CP > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Francis Dupont > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:30 PM > To: Chirayu Patel > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Derek Fawcus'; 'Joshua Graessley' > Subject: Re: What is the length of the Link-Local prefix? > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > If the next 54 bits are always expected to be zero then the prefix should > be > declared to fe80::/64, and RFC 3513 should be corrected. > > Do any of the old timers have a take on this one? Jim, Keith, Tony, > Brian..... > anyone? :-) > > => there is a semantic problem: > - if the question is how to distinguish link-locals using a prefix > notation, the answer is fe80::/10. > - if the question is what kind of link-local prefixes should be used, > for instance in routing tables (i.e., in concrete instances), then > the answer is fe80::/64 and in general with a zone id (aka scope id) > constraint, i.e., fe80::/64%<link-id>. > > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
