Jürgen,
> On Jan 13, 2022, at 5:49 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > As pointed out by others, this is what I proposed back in July '21: > > typedef ipv6-address-link-local { > type ipv6-address; > pattern '[fF][eE]80:.*'; > description > "A link-local IPv6 address in the prefix fe80::/10 as defined > in section 2.5.6. of RFC 4291."; > reference > "RFC 4291: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture"; > } > > If this serves the purpose, I can add this definition to the > inet-types module. This example had been the first time I'd seen a pattern on top of a typedef with its own pattern. That said, it seems to be what I would expect. > > Will there also be a need to have an IPv4 equivalent? For most of the routing technologies I have worked on, it's not a requirement. But it's an appropriate gap to fill and will potentially be useful for other technologies. E.g. BRAS. > > typedef ipv4-address-link-local { > type ipv4-address; > pattern '169\.254\..*'; > description > "A link-local IPv4 address in the prefix 169.254.0.0/16 as > defined in section 2.1. of RFC 3927."; > reference > "RFC 3927: Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses"; > } -- Jeff _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
