Hesham, Host nodes should not be doing this? We did not put this in ND for very good reason. We want to reduce what Hosts no about prefixes and leave to the stateless and stateful. Why do we want to put this into HOsts. What is the reason. That is not below.
What problem is this addition trying to fix or solve? I have read the draft below and believe the core issue is resolved. What prefixes are supplied is in the system not the host or why not just use DHCPv6? I think we cannot and must not overrule the essential meaning of the A and M bits. In fact I suggest in additon to each member of this list a problem statement be stated for each change to 2461. thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Soliman Hesham > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Issue 13: Omission of prefix options - resolution > > > Hi, > > This is an attempt to resolve this issue: > > Issue 13: Impacts of the omission of a prefix option. > section 2.2 in : > > http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.t xt describes the impacts of omitting a prefix option from an RA on movement detection for mobile nodes. RFC 2461 does not require options to be present in every RA. In case you haven't had time to look through the draft here is the background info: This issue raises the problem with omitting some prefixes from an RA. The problem here is that 2461 says that a router may choose to omit some prefixes from the RA to save BW (i.e. while the lifetime of that prefix has not expired). A mobile node might take this as an indication of movement (i.e. it is no longer reachable on the CoA that was derived from the omitted prefix). This may unnecessarily cause the mobile node to send a binding update to the HA/CNs to indicate that its CoA has changed. The other problem is that a host has no idea whether an RA contains all the prefix options that are valid on a link. Therefore, even if it sends an RS it might still get an RA with an incomplete list of prefixes. Suggested resolution: - Introduce a new code (1) in the router solicitation and advertisement. When a host sends an RS with code = 1 it requests that the RA include all prefixses valid on that link. Similarly, when a router sends an RA with code=1 it means that the RA includes all prefixes valid on that link. This way, a MN can confirm its mobility. Comments? Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
