On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > 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? > > Part of the consideration is the folks want to use RAs as frequent > beacons for attachment detection. Making such beacons to carry > potentially lots of prefixes, especially on bandwidth constrained > (wireless) links, might be self-defeating. > > Thus recommending that all prefixes be sent every 10 milliseconds (or > whatever the min number is in the MIPv6 spec) might not be the best > approach.
Uhh, this seems like a total abuse of the RA mechanism :-). The point of it to be able to carry the prefixes needed for autoconfiguration. If it's supposed to be used for a beacon mechanism, I'd suggest considering whether one could find a method that does not send prefixes at ALL (or, just send the prefix of the router with prefixlen=128 if you really insist). This would enable you to retain the model where RA's would in fact be complete when they included prefix information options that the nodes would use. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
