Why not send this email message to the IAB and ask?
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: <JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H (B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:15 AM
Subject: [2462bis] IAB recommendation on prefix lengths
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to know opinions on the following IAB recommendation
> regarding rfc2462bis (the latter part):
>
> e) We recommend that, via a recommendation to the IESG, that the IPv6
> Working Group expeditiously revise RFC-2461 to:
>
> * specifically note that it is not valid to configure an IPv6
> router such that the 'autonomous configuration' bit is set to
> TRUE AND the advertised IPv6 prefix length exceeds 64 bits AND
> the advertised IPv6 prefix does not start with binary 000,
>
> and also expeditiously revise RFC-2462 to:
>
> * specifically require that a host ignore a Prefix Advertisement
> Option when the first three bits of the advertised IPv6 prefix
> do not start with binary 000 AND the advertised IPv6
> prefix-length exceeds 64-bits.
>
> (The entire message including the recommendation is available at:
>
http://www.iab.org/appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html)
>
> The latest revision of the rfc2462bis draft does not contain this
> particular change. In particular, it does not contain the hard-coded
> constants of binary 000 and 64-bits.
>
> Instead, the draft specifies a prefix (with the A flag being set) must
> be ignored if the sum of the advertised prefix length and the length
> of the interface identifier is not identical to 128. This requirement
> is actually already included in RFC2452.
>
> The rfc2462bis draft also clarifies that the length of the interface
> identifier is defined in link-specific documents which should be
> consistent with the IPv6 address architecture.
>
> The above IAB recommendation is therefore a logical consequence from
> what are described in the draft because the IPv6 address architecture
> specifies the interface ID length is 64 for addresses beginning with
> binary 000.
>
> We could still add the specific recommendation to rfc2462bis.
> However, I personally hesitate to do that since I basically prefer
> not hard-coding particular constants in general rules as long as the
> specification is clear (and, in fact, I believe the specification is
> already pretty clear on this point).
>
> What do others think? Any opinions or suggestions will be highly
> appreciated.
>
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
