On 5/7/12 12:40 CDT, Dan Luedtke wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thaler<[email protected]> wrote:
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."
Got it now, thanks :) Yes, weakening the requirements seems to be not
useful in this case.
I prefer MUST NOT, too.
"MUST NOT be forwarded" is not the same thing as "MUST be dropped".
Everything in the Link-Local scope "MUST NOT be forwarded" to another
interface. Everything in FF80::/10 is in the Link-Local Scope.
FF80::/64 is currently used for Link-Local addressing, the reset of
FF80::/10 is reserved. I believe the comment was that saying that the
reserved space should be dropped is incorrect and will frustrate future
use of the reserved portion of FF80::/10 if there is any.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:[email protected]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
