Pekka Savola wrote > Hence, we need to either make it clearer that the prefixes are not > omitted, or make up better movement detection mechanisms.
I think we agreed that it's necessary to make it clearer that the prefixes are not omitted. But it seems that I propose to indicate it explicitly by using code =1 and you advocate to do it implicitly by mandating (is it too strong word?) every RA contains all the prefixes. > 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? For me, either way is O.K, whether explicit or implicit, if only it makes non -omission clear. We'd better compare which way is more efficient, banning omission or adopting a new code. But here is the concern I have on implicit way. In wireless link, bandwidth is a precious commodity. Mobile IPv6 reduces the lower bound of the Router Advertisement Intervals. Greg Daley calculated that the bandwidth consumption by multicast beacons is 14 kbps when RAs only include one Prefix Information option. So in wireless environment, it may take too much bandwidth to advertise all the prefixes in all the RAs. Best regards JinHyeock 1H>þ°¢¹"ž+¢êfj)bž b²Ø©¿¨žµú+€fŠx¬¶¶Š÷‘z«ž²Û!¶Úlÿü0ÃXžµú+ƒùšŠYšŸùb²Ø§~â¦þ
