Soliman Hesham wrote:
> 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.
Thomas' explaination did indeed clear my confusion on this subject. A clarification in the new revision would seem to put the issue to rest, IMHO.
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
