> Not necessarily an objection, but I'd like you to review my thoughts
> below (attached), which is mainly for the rfc2462bis work
> but has some
> relationship with rfc2461bis.
>
> In short, in my interpretation the prefix length for an
> on-link prefix
> can be an arbitrary number, and is even not related to
> ADDRARCH at all.
> I could be wrong, of course, but I've not seen any comments (either
> positive or negative) on the previous post, so right now I think I'm
> correct on this.
=> I guess what puzzles me is how a host can form a valid address
using 2462 if the prefix advertised != 64 bits? Sure there are other uses for
the prefix length for on-link determination but I think it is important to
include the entire prefix in the prefix option. For instance, in your example
where the RA includes a /62 prefix to indicate that all prefixes longer than
that are on-link, the host will understand the on-link part, but how does it
configure an address in a stateless fashion?
Hesham
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center,
> Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
and delete all copies.
===========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
