> If so, it should make sense to recover this part in rfc2462bis. > Possible options include: > > 1) update the preferred lifetime regardless of whether the valid > lifetime is accepted or not wrt the "two-hour" rule > 2) update the preferred lifetime only when the valid lifetime is > accepted > 3) leave this as implementation dependent > > I don't think option 3 is the way to go, since RFC1971 clearly > mentioned the preferred lifetime. > > The KAME/BSD implementation behaves as option 1. However, it seems to > me that option 2 makes much more sense because a rejected valid > lifetime indicates a possibility of attack and the other parts of > the information may then be bogus as well. And, in fact, item 2 of > 5.5.3 e) says: > > 2) If the StoredLifetime is less than or equal to 2 > hours and the > received Lifetime is less than or equal to StoredLifetime, > ignore the prefix,... > > that is, it specifies ignoring "the prefix", not just "the valid > lifetime". > > What do others think? As I already indicated, I'd propose to revise > the text clearly with option 2 above.
To reduce logically redundancy, KAME just omitted "two-hour" rule IMHO. So I think you can propose both of them to clarify this rule with high preference for (2). Hope this helps... Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Platform Laboratory, Samsung Electronics. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
