Subject: draft needed - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64 (Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt)

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:29:54 -0700

At Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:39:27 -0500,
Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The BSD code that was shown earlier checks the src of a received ND
> packet against fe80::/10 (not against fe80::/64).
>
> And other code in same OS BSD adds fe80::/64 (not fe80::/10) in the rt
> table.

I see there's some loose area between fe80::/10 and fe80::/64, but
that does not immediately mean a "problem".  If you want to raise a
concern to be shared with the wg, we'd need to see a specific
operational scenario such as one where one implementation cannot
communicate with others using a link-local address (whether the
definition is fe80::/10 or fe80::/64).  So far no one perhaps except
yourself sees such a scenario.  I'd suggest you summarize that
scenario in a draft and submit it, and then discuss it here, rather
than make this thread any longer.  I believe a draft is better than
more messages in this thread - email exchanges tend to lack critical
details, and at this point its overhead outweighs the vibrancy of
real-time(-ish) discussions.  I also guess that was a suggestion by
Ole as a wg chair.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya