Re: Standardized IPv6 ULA from PublicKey

[Roman Mamedov <rm@romanrm.net>]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 13:03:40 +0200
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:

> Eh? This is specified pretty clearly in RFC4291, section 2.1:

It also says:

-----

2.5.6.  Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses

   Link-Local addresses are for use on a single link.  Link-Local
   addresses have the following format:

   |   10     |
   |  bits    |         54 bits         |          64 bits           |
   +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
   |1111111010|           0             |       interface ID         |
   +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+


-----

So should we also follow the designated format for link-locals, or accept that
WG's case differs from what they had in mind in those sections. That the
"interface" is a special one, with a "link" that doesn't function as other
kinds of links do, that there's no "neighbour" per se to contact by an
all-neighbour multicast for instance, no mechanism for the "all routers"
multicast to work, etc (i.e. all of what the LLs were intended to support).

To be clear I'm not against adding LLs, just that "the RFC says so" shouldn't
be considered the main argument for that when it comes to WG.

-- 
With respect,
Roman