|
|||||||||||
|
Réf. : Re: Réf. : Re: R if._:_Re:_IPv6_Linklocal_address_and_IPSec_bug
From: <Sebastien.Josset(at)space.alcatel.fr>
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 03:37:00 EDT
According to the book I use as reference (IPv6 theory and practic: O'Reilly,
Gizele Cizault),
0: reserved 1: Node local scope 2: link local scope 3 subnet scope 5: site scope 8: Organization-local scope E: global scope F: reserved The idea is: 8 is a larger scope that 6 that is a larger scope that 4 etc. It only differs for 3 and 4. Ok, I agree that only references should be RFCs... What I want to say is 'link local' (2) addresses need a patch in order to be deciphered by openBSD IPSec. I've tested with (3) that does work. For the others I don't known. Hope it helps, best regards, Sébastien Josset Peter Curran <peter@closeconsultants.com> on 20/09/2003 10:34:15
Pour : Sebastien.Josset@space.alcatel.fr
cc : ipv6@openbsd.org (ccc : Sebastien Josset/ALCATEL-SPACE)
Objet : Re: Réf. : Re: R if._:_Re:_IPv6_Linklocal_address_and_IPSec_bug
Where does scope '3' come from?
According to RFC3513....
of the multicast group. The values are:
0 reserved
1 interface-local scope
2 link-local scope
3 reserved
4 admin-local scope
5 site-local scope
6 (unassigned)
7 (unassigned)
8 organization-local scope
9 (unassigned)
A (unassigned)
B (unassigned)
C (unassigned)
D (unassigned)
E global scope
F reserved
Cheers Peter -- ========================================================== Peter Curran CISSP |Unix & Network Security +44-1225-463700 (office) | Security Management +44-1225-463705 (fax) | Network Design & +44-7710-471318 (mobile) | Troubleshooting peter@CloseConsultants.com | Education & Training ALCATEL SPACE Research Department/Advanced Telecom Satellite Systems Tel : +33 (0)53435 5104 / Fax : +33 (0)53435 5560 Porte : W218 / E-Mail : sebastien.josset@space.alcatel.fr ALCATEL SPACEReceived on Mon Sep 22 04:09:47 2003 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 13:30:14 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||