Why not, they are perfectly legal?
> By spec, auto-configured link-local address is fe80::/64
> and connected route should be /64.
Yes auto-configured have fe80:0:0:0: in their upper 64 bits, but that
is just for autoconfigured addessses. That is a seperate issue to which
prefix desinates link local.
Connected routes don't have to be /64, things work correctly even if
one picks any other value.
> If you do really want to use such addresses (like fe80:1920::10),
> you can put another route by yourself, at your own risk.
No - what I'm saying is that all link locals should go to the link.
There is no risk inherent in using such an address or link local prefix.
If a mechanism is required such that autoconfig generates the correct
type of address, then add it. But that doesn't _require_ that
the connected route be /64.
I happen to use link locals like the quite often, since it makes
testing and reading packet traces a hell of a lot easier.
> We should not configure in such way by default.
> and, we should even have to add "discard" route for them
> by default for safe.
Why. In what way is it not 'safe' to have any link local address
sent onto the link? They'll either reach a destination or not,
but given that they'll never leave the link, they can't be inherently
unsafe.
DF
-
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/