> RFC 2461 explicitly doesn't require checking the set of prefixes (but
> it does say to check that the lifetimes on a prefix which both routers
> advertise are consistent, etc).
> *If* we are going to change this, I don't think it should be a subtle
> setence in 2461bis; I think it should be a standalone RFC so
> that operators and implementors pay attention.
> If we do that, making 2461bis have the same message makes sense.
>
> Perhaps writing up a draft for v6ops would be a good start.
> Pointing out that the current flexibility (of different prefixes
> advertised by different routers) doesn't have any operational use, but
> allowing hosts, for Nemo and multihoming reasons, to tell when
> there are source address constraints might have some use.
>
I agree.
jak
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
