From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "sj-iport-2.cisco.com", Issuer "Cisco SSCA" (not verified)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6DC3201AEE; Mon, 9 May 2011 01:08:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=590; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304928908; x=1306138508; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AJaBn5X7f0nEAI2sIOuuECoID4JAJNRTwYly3UMTDhg=; b=Gbh0AKnvyukse62dfIk8qG6gM+L8EcRs9NHSiGcRdnpCPxnEBe0XcPxl uFBIMvTNx7F1gTL3yjVZH2MqXCFZiQQ+dBmSMfbY2kO9RNdlXQIeJjLjv U0kdE+BAXtqqEqw40aT6RlFm7vYRt+5JwN9ljwnJw/L5iiziwUD+sa6uh M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAB6ix02rRDoI/2dsb2JhbACmAXeIcZ1mnSGGDASGQIklhCiKVQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,339,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="352991211" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2011 08:15:07 +0000 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com [10.32.244.222]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p498F1Sf006901; Mon, 9 May 2011 08:15:06 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 09 May 2011 01:15:07 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com on Mon, 09 May 2011 01:15:07 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 01:14:51 -0700 Message-Id: <1A32BF60-18B3-44C3-9908-4225B33E8EFD@cisco.com> References: To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 May 2011 07:45:32 -0700 Cc: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Subject: Re: [Bismark-devel] [Bloat] ipv6 fe80:: addresses, vlans and bridges... borked? X-BeenThere: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: BISMark related software development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 08:08:52 -0000 On May 8, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > Is there a standard for renaming fe80:: addresses to represent they = are interfacing with different vlans? well, yes. Link-local addresses (FE80::/10) areas you say interpreted = only in the LAN in question. The usual approach is to give the LAN a = subnet prefix. The standard is RFC 4291. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt 4291 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture. R. Hinden, S. Deering. February 2006. (Format: TXT=3D52897 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC3513) = (Updated by RFC5952, RFC6052) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)