In addition to what Julien said, (RFC2461, Section 6.3.4) also says: "Prefixes with the on-link flag set to zero would normally have the autonomous flag set and be used by [ADDRCONF]."
and ([ADDRCONF], Section 5.5.3) looks only at the 'A' bit for address configuration. Hosts use prefixes with the 'A' bit set to configure an address and add it to the list of addresses assigned to the interface regardless of the sense of the 'L' bit. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Julien Laganier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:43 AM To: James Kempf Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; INT Area; IETF IPv6 Mailing List Subject: Re: [netlmm] Multilink Subnet Considerations for NETLMM Addressing Hi James, Just for clarification. On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:04, James Kempf wrote: > Fred, > > I don't think this quite captures the situation. > > [...] > > 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. > > [...] I wouldn't say that 'L=0' semantic is underspecified. I on the opposite found 2461 to be quite well specified. It says: Note, however, that a Prefix Information option with the on-link flag set to zero conveys no information concerning on-link determination and MUST NOT be interpreted to mean that addresses covered by the prefix are off-link. That is, it doesn't mean that *all* nodes are off-link. Some might, while some might not. But it clearly specifies what the node should do in that case. The default behavior (see Section 5.2) when sending a packet to an address for which no information is known about the on-link status of the address is to forward the packet to a default router; i.e. send packets to the default router. What do you think is underspecified? --julien _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
