Hi Jon, > Thanks for bringing up my favorite topic! > > Happy to step on those land mines! :-) > > Uh, is that "Duplicate but slightly wrong functions", "bit-byte-numbering > issues", > or "link-local addressing"? :-)
It was mostly the U/G bits and flavours of IPv6 interface-ids. It feels like a significant portion of my life has been spent talking about those. And on my death bed, when summarizing my life I'm not sure I will conclude that was well spent time. ;-) For SLAAC I think we need to add support for RFC7217 at some point. And manually setting IID would be nice too. I don't think we need 7217 for link-local though. Best regards, Ole > > > I am happy to submit a patch to fix this situation, but I'd like to make > > sure we get it right. :-) > > > > Here's what I think we should do: > > - Remove the function ip6_link_local_address_from_ethernet_address() as > > it > > contains the incorrect bit, (1 << 6). > > - Replace the one use of that function with a call to > > Yes, please! > ip6_link_local_address_from_ethernet_mac_address() instead. > > - Answer the bit-wise XOR vs OR question ...? > > XOR is correct. > > Excellent. Patch in a moment. Local testing... > > Cheers > Ole > > Thanks! > jdl >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#13284): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/13284 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/32054012/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
