James,
> I don't think this quite captures the situation.
I tend to disagree; see below:
> First off, a prefix advertised in an RA is not assigned to an end
node, it
> is assigned to a link. A prefix can only rightly be considered to be
> assigned to a node when it is delegated via DHCP, this allows the node
to
> then assign the prefix to links downstream, or delegate further if the
> prefix isn't a /64.
The text does not say anywhere "assigned to (sic) an end node";
it says "associated with (sic) an end node/nodes", and prefixes
are associated with a link per (RFC4291, Section 2.1).
> Secondly, exactly what is meant by 'L=0' is underspecified by RFC
2461. I
> think everyone agrees with 'L=1' means, that the prefix is only being
> advertised to nodes that are on this physical link. Any effort to
tighten up
> the definitoin of 'L=0' is going to need wider discussion with the
ipv6 WG
> and possibly might impact RFC2461bis. This draft is currently in AD
> Evauation:Revised Draft Needed.
As long as a MN does not assign a prefix with 'L=0' to an interface,
then the RFC2461 interpretation of 'L=0' is irrelevant in terms of
the text I offered and RFC2461 is certainly specified well enough
such that implementations would not assign a prefix with 'L=0' to
an interface.
> Thirdly, this doesn't discuss at all link forwarding considerations,
> particularly with regard to link local multicast (i.e. forwarding of
traffic
> to link local multicast addresses). As we've discussed offlist,
exactly how
> link local multicast forwarding works for NETLMM is an open question
at this
> point. I started another thread on that for comment. So far, the
thread
> hasn't been very active.
Again, this is irrelevant wrt to the text I offered, and subject
for a separate thread of discussion. Such discussion should take
place on a wider distribution such as the INT area and IPv6 lists
since it is germane to the IPv6 addressing architecture and not
particular to NETLMM.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "INT Area" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:46 PM
Subject: [netlmm] Multilink Subnet Considerations for NETLMM Addressing
Having been away from e-mail for the past several days, the
text below is offered to cover the NETLMM Addressing concerns.
This would naturally go as replacement text for Section 5 of
'draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-01.txt', but may be appropriate
for other documents as well. Comments?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"5. Multilink Subnet Considerations
An individual prefix is an IP prefix associated with a specific
MN, and a shared prefix is an IP prefix that may be associated
with multiple MNs.
ARs must not include an individual prefix in RAs that may be
received by a MN other than the one associated with the prefix.
ARs must not send RAs that include a shared prefix in a Prefix
Information Option with 'A'=1 unless there is operational assurance
of duplicate address detection/avoidance across the NETLMM domain.
ARs must not send RAs that include an individual or shared prefix
in a Prefix Information Option with 'L'=1 unless all RAs that
include the prefix and all MNs that receive them are associated
with a single link."
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
