Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:49:30 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: citrin+bsd@citrin.ru Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fe80::1%lo0 Message-ID: <20170112.004930.1372286639994163593.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <94a99b96-808b-8f50-a4a3-eec8659737cd@citrin.ru> References: <94a99b96-808b-8f50-a4a3-eec8659737cd@citrin.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Thu_Jan_12_00_49_30_2017_204)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anton Yuzhaninov <citrin+bsd@citrin.ru> wrote in <94a99b96-808b-8f50-a4a3-eec8659737cd@citrin.ru>: ci> Hello, ci> ci> Why FreeBSD adds fe80::1%lo0 to the loopback interface? ci> ci> I know, that in IPv6 each interface should have a link-local address, ci> but ::1 can be considered as link-local: ci> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.3 FreeBSD's IPv6 stack was written before RFC 4291 clarifies whether ::1 is a link-local address or not---currently the implementation does not recognize ::1 as an address with link-local scope. ci> I think fe80::1 is unnecessary can be removed. For all practical ci> purposes ::1 should be enough. No. It may work with no link-local address but an unexpected behavior can happen in the kernel even if it is not harmful actually. If we really want to remove it, address scope of ::1 needs to be changed throughout the kernel in a consistent manner first. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Thu_Jan_12_00_49_30_2017_204)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEABECAAYFAlh2VAoACgkQTyzT2CeTzy0vTwCfSYMvmIenswh4+qf8DcI2qPu7 hD8AnjX6EZpQta8Vk4GGu1bvQ8rzetvt =dink -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Thu_Jan_12_00_49_30_2017_204)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170112.004930.1372286639994163593.hrs>