Re: Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call
Brian Haberman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 4/27/15 12:30 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Brian, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman >> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:22 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DMM] Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call >> >> >> >> On 4/27/15 11:53 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >>>> So, it is not actually a link-local address per the IPv6 Addressing >>>> Architecture (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.6). >>> >>> Just because the AERO address Interface ID is not formed via EUI-64 >>> does not mean that it is not a link-local address (see RFC7136, which >>> updates RFC4291). RFC7421 gives further commentary. >> >> I am not referring to the IID of the link-local address. I am talking >> about the 54 bits of zero which immediately follow the FE80::/10 prefix. > > AERO leaves those 54 bits as zero - are you seeing some place in the > spec where it does not appear that way? Apologies. I read your example incorrectly. As long as the prefix delegated is 64 bits... Brian _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 473 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVPmWDAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqLCQIAMMWMt/9MCCiPJJtz0LFf/cq Og5N4+js0G8hpl6D3k6rlU1hr2mdvV2IQUOShvoMvCtscoTcxRZsB1N4Ie0e5rui fs3jWoIJ4mX4mF2/sRmbUoFW+zcMyaznXl7D0Ri4wqdO/lZBprmYWHfQNQj20u8S ki7+yrzIS2UEevSrJcqBv7HvISBxsBhnimZHZJDF7wdF3OKxrUI/en8+tVnEyNt5 YEQvMrTiCbfiRVow5lZ/QQegb31GZNYjtspyVlPUUSQirrMPg/uR+PVB3rL4OvcP W0mgDrRwcE+mBglwp/S0EM74iyEQBonRzge9zy591yYvPABUN6vhR6B3HCeMc78= =+XYW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----