On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, JinHyeock Choi wrote: > Even though an RA contains all the prefixes, there is no indication that > it does. > > After link change, if an RA without the prefix of its current CoA > arrives, mobile node can't be sure that its CoA is no longer valid. > Hence still uncertainty remains for a mobile node.
Hence, we need to either make it clearer that the prefixes are not omitted, or make up better movement detection mechanisms. Do you have any specific reasons for this? There is really no reason to omit those prefixes that I could see. Rather than adding new code to verify this, shouldn't we just warn about this situation and be done with it? Or even state that prefixes SHOULD NOT (or MUST NOT) be omitted unless including them would cause a too big packet (over MTU) to be sent? That is, we seem to have different high-level views to this issue. I don't see that we need to fix this theoretical(?) problem, rather try to ensure that it won't happen. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
