> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Dan Luedtke > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:21 AM > To: David Conrad > Cc: Christian Huitema; 6man > Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> * FE80::/64 is used for configuring link local addresses; > >> * FE80::/10 is reserved by the IETF. > >> * By default, implementations SHOULD discard packets received from > >> addresses in FE80::/10 outside of FE80::/64 > > I personally believe the lesson we've learned from the Class E space is that > this sort of reservation/direction is less useful than we might like. > > It might be common sense, but could you give me a hint why a > implementation SHOULD not discard those packets? I really tried to craft a > scenario, but none come to my mind so far.
MUST NOT would seem to match the intent of the original RFCs which say: " Routers must not forward any packets with link-local source or destination addresses to other links." -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
