From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derek Fawcus Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:00:18 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021009170018.H29133@edinburgh.cisco.com> References: <20021008.000559.17528416.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, usagi@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: To: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B" In-Reply-To: <20021008.000559.17528416.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>; from yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:05:59AM +0900 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:05:59AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B wrote: > Hi, > > Prefix length for link-local address should be 64, not 10. > This patch fixes prefix length of link-local address. > > Following patch is against 2.4.19. Huh? Without reading the kernel routing table code a bit more, I'm not certain what that change does, but it looks as if it might be changing the connected route for a link local from fe80::/10 to fe80::/64. I'd actually say that is wrong. 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. DF