> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix > "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even > include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addresses. > > Is this the intended behavior? I believe not, and if not, shouldn't > the specification be clearer to avoid this case? I believe it should.
I don't think this was the intent, thus it makes sense to clarify the specification. My take in this is that there is basically two levels: 1. Maintaining the set of addrconf prefixes based on what is received in router advertisements and timeouts. 2. Configure addresses from those prefixes (which have a lifetime based on the lifetime of the underlying prefix). I don't know if it makes sense to structure the text that way. BTW: Is there a separate issue about the interaction of the lifetime in the advertised prefixes and addresses that are not configured using stateless? (For instance, would these lifetimes affect the addresses configured manually or with DHCP?) The resultion of such an issue will affect this text as well. > e) If the prefix advertised does not match the prefix of an address > already in the list, make a new address from the prefix > f) If the prefix advertised does match the prefix of an address > already in the list, update the lifetimes of the address I still think this is underspecified since you haven't defined what "match the prefix" means. You'd need to state that two prefixes match when the length of the prefixes is identical and the "length" first bits are identical. Otherwise folks might read this the same as "prefix advertised matches an address" Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
