> > when a router includes a Prefix Information Option (section
> 4.6.2 of RFC 2461) in the Router Advertisement, and if the
> router has an address configured from that prefix, I suggest
> including the router's address in the 'Prefix' field. not
> just the prefix. the Prefix Length field will still indicate
> the prefix length and hosts should be able to figure out
> the prefix.
> > we have had problems when two different interfaces of a
> router use the same link local address. some host
> implementations just check the source address and assume that
> the current router is still reachable even when they move
> between links attached to the two interfaces on the router.
> > we came across this issue at Connectathon 2002. the following
> URL has some discussion on it
> > http://www.piuha.net/~jarkko/publications/mipv6/issues/issue278.txt
> > Mobile IPv6 already defines a Modified Prefix Information
> option where the router's address is present in the prefix
> field. I would like to see it in the Neighbor Discovery
> specification itself. having the global unicast address in
> the prefix field will help in movement detection.
=> This sounds like an issue that is currently solved by using the R bit specified in MIPv6, right? If so, and since this issue is specific to MNs, do you
think it needs to be considered again in this work?
In other words, is your suggestion that we add the support
for the R bit in the revised spec?
no R bit. always include the global address configured from the prefix instead of just the prefix. the prefix can always be obtained using the prefix length field.
it is probably more useful to mobile nodes. but not just MIPv6. it is useful whenever a node needs the global address of its access router.
Vijay
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
