> Something about prefixes with L=0 are confusing to me. Kindly see > below. > > 1. The prefixes with L bit off. > - The meaning/ purpose of prefixes with L=0 is not exactly clear > to me. What's the use of non-on-link prefixes for a node? > > 2. The prefixes assigned to more than one links. > - According to RFC 2461, it's legitimate to assign a prefix > (with L=0) > to two separate links. But it's not clear to me on what condition > can we do this.
=> Actually, I think the L flag is a really powerful feature. Basically when it indicates that a prefix is not on-link it is informing hosts that they should send their traffic to the default router. This is useful for the case you mentioned where a prefix is assigned to more than one link (e.g. multi-link subnets/ND proxying devices). > > I wish we clarify the above. The prefixes with L=0 makes DNA work > complicated. Though they are troublesome, I am afriad that, > in wireless > environment, we can't avoid them. => If it is found that in some deployment cases the L=0 causes problems, the network admin is free to configure the routers accordingly and always use on-link prefixes. This is completely under the control of the admin. I think Fred Templin sent a question some time ago on this and Thomas explained how hosts should handle the case where the L flag is set to zero. We can add this clarification in the new revision if that helps. If there are other scenarios where this is problematic please send them to the list. Thanks, Hesham > > Best regards > > JinHyeock > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
