I'm replying to some of the other points you made. I guess we may
need a separate discussion for the rest, so I'll create dedicated
entries for them in the issue tracker.
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:43:04 +0100,
>>>>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > s.5.5: prefix Info options are not necessarily the only
>> source of prefixes
>> > for auto-configuration.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand the comment. Could you be more specific?
> The first sentence of s5.5 implies that the only way to get a Global Address
> is the Stateless Autoconfig way.
> How about:
> Once an interface has a link local address it can additionally acquire one
> or more local use or global scope addresses
> either through stateful or stateless autoconfiguration. In stateless address
> autoconfiguration, global and local use addresses are formed by appending...
First, let's just forget "local use" addresses here (whatever you mean
by this). Those are not in the scope of rfc2462bis.
Besides, the first sentence is not really accurate since a global
address can be generated in concurrent with the creation of a
link-local address. So, we can simply say:
In stateless address autoconfiguration, global addresses are formed by
appending...
I don't mind to make this modification.
>> > s.5.5.2: the second para implies that 2461bis should
>> mention the ability to
>> > manually configure a prefix in the default routers list
>> (not currently
>> > mentioned).
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand the comment. Could you be more specific?
>> Is this a comment on rfc2462bis in the first place?
> Section 5.5.2 suggests that there needs to be a way to manually configure a
> router/packet forwarder address (sorry I didn't mean prefix) in case a link
> has no advertising routers. 2461bis doesn't mention such a capability - the
> default routers list is built exclusively from RAs at present. Should we ask
> for it to be added?
I'm not really sure what you meant by "the default routers list is
built exclusively from RAs at present", but it may make sense to say
in rfc2461bis that there is no other way to configure the "forwarding
node's address" automatically as a (possibly bad) effect of not
sending RAs.
In any event, I interpreted this is not a new issue for rfc2462bis.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
