From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jeremy@visser.name>
Received: from azaroth.sunriseroad.net (azaroth.sunriseroad.net
	[74.207.248.76])
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3885201A5E
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 10 May 2011 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:44b8:7df3:b970:221:85ff:fe61:d679] (unknown
	[IPv6:2001:44b8:7df3:b970:221:85ff:fe61:d679])
	by azaroth.sunriseroad.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5598A87B6
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 11 May 2011 00:30:09 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <4DC94BF6.5060302@visser.name>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 00:30:14 +1000
From: Jeremy Visser <jeremy@visser.name>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
References: <BANLkTi=ta8EsXSgTnRmES-soB-iOwFF5Ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=ta8EsXSgTnRmES-soB-iOwFF5Ow@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_NONE autolearn=no
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	azaroth.sunriseroad.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] ipv6 fe80:: addresses, vlans and bridges... borked?
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:24:28 -0000

Dave Taht said:
> the bridged to a vlan fe80:: addresses are all the same. This strikes me
> as a problem.

You never reference link-local address by themselves anyway — they are
always referenced with their scope ID for context. So your addresses are
unique after all:

fe80::c63d:c7ff:fe8b:6e1a%br-lan
fe80::c63d:c7ff:fe8b:6e1a%br-guest
fe80::c63d:c7ff:fe8b:6e1a%br-meshlink1
fe80::c63d:c7ff:fe8b:6e1a%br-meshlink2

Forgive me if I am stating the obvious or misunderstanding your point.