Auto merge of #85819 - CDirkx:is_unicast_link_local_strict, r=joshtriplett

Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_link_local_strict`

Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_link_local_strict` and keeps the behaviour of `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_link_local`, see also #85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far.

My intent is for `is_unicast_link_local`, `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` to have the semantics of checking if an address has Link-Local, Site-Local or Global scope, see also #85696 which changes the behaviour of `is_unicast_global` and renames these methods to `has_unicast_XXX_scope` to reflect this.

For checking Link-Local scope we currently have two methods: `is_unicast_link_local` and `is_unicast_link_local_strict`. This is because of what appears to be conflicting definitions in [IETF RFC 4291](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291).

From [IETF RFC 4291 section 2.4](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.4): "Link-Local unicast" (`FE80::/10`)
```text
Address type         Binary prefix        IPv6 notation   Section
------------         -------------        -------------   -------
Unspecified          00...0  (128 bits)   ::/128          2.5.2
Loopback             00...1  (128 bits)   ::1/128         2.5.3
Multicast            11111111             FF00::/8        2.7
Link-Local unicast   1111111010           FE80::/10       2.5.6
Global Unicast       (everything else)
```

From [IETF RFC 4291 section 2.5.6](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.6): "Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses" (`FE80::/64`)
```text
| 10 bits  |         54 bits         |          64 bits           |
+----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
|1111111010|           0             |       interface ID         |
+----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
```

With `is_unicast_link_local` checking `FE80::/10` and `is_unicast_link_local_strict` checking `FE80::/64`.

There is also [IETF RFC 5156 section 2.4](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5156#section-2.4) which defines "Link-Scoped Unicast" as `FE80::/10`.

It has been pointed out that implementations in other languages and the linux kernel all use `FE80::/10` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76098#issuecomment-706916840, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76098#issuecomment-705928605).

Given all of this I believe the correct interpretation to be the following: All addresses in `FE80::/10` are defined as having Link-Local scope, however currently only the block `FE80::/64` has been allocated for "Link-Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses". This might change in the future however; more addresses in `FE80::/10` could be allocated and those will have Link-Local scope. I therefore believe the current behaviour of `is_unicast_link_local` to be correct (if interpreting it to have the semantics of `has_unicast_link_local_scope`) and `is_unicast_link_local_strict` to be unnecessary, confusing and even a potential source of future bugs:

Currently there is no real difference in checking `FE80::/10` or `FE80::/64`, since any address in practice will be `FE80::/64`. However if an application uses `is_unicast_link_local_strict` to implement link-local (so non-global) behaviour, it will be incorrect in the future if addresses outside of `FE80::/64` are allocated.

r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions