> -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:25 PM > To: Narayanan, Vidya; marcelo bagnulo braun > Cc: James Kempf; INT Area > Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet > prefix,and broadcast domain > > > I was referring to multicast RAs for purposes of SLAAC. If you did > > stateful address configuration and used RAs only to > advertise default > > router, that is different. > > Its not only about stateful address configuration; > unsolicited RAs with incomplete information can be followed > by an RS/RA exchange where the RA contains prefixes for SLAAC. >
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by RAs with "incomplete information". In any case, the above design seems weird to me. For one, there is no reason a host should send an RS right after it received an unsolicited RA. Further, what you are suggesting is that the unsolicited RA is different from the RA that follows the RS. All these sound architecturally strange to me. Vidya > Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
