This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Thu Apr 25 02:48:07 2024 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.116.70.75]) by kylie.puddingonline.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99HKTU25162 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:20:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:11:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:11:14 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]:48910 "EHLO netcore.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:11:12 -0400 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99HGeU17944; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:16:40 +0300 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:16:39 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Cc: dfawcus@cisco.com, , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses In-Reply-To: <20021010.015432.63506989.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote: > In article <20021009170018.H29133@edinburgh.cisco.com> (at Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:00:18 +0100), Derek Fawcus says: > > > All link local's are currently supposed to have those top bits > > ('tween 10 and 64) zero'd, however any address within the link local > > prefix _is_ on link / connected and should go to the interface. > > > > i.e. it's perfectly valid for me to assign a link local of fe80:1910::10 > > to an interface and expect it to be work, likewise for a packet > > destined to any link local address to trigger ND. > > First of all, please don't use such addresses. > > By spec, auto-configured link-local address is fe80::/64 > and connected route should be /64. > > If you do really want to use such addresses (like fe80:1920::10), > you can put another route by yourself, at your own risk. > > We should not configure in such way by default. > and, we should even have to add "discard" route for them > by default for safe. Personally I think the interfaces should be configured with a /64 but there should be a discard route for the whole /10. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/