At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:27:37 -0400,
Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One bug that may or may not be common is to make assumptions about
> the prefixes on a link based on addresses assigned to an interface.
> I can imagine (and I believe we've actually made a real sighting of
> this scenario) that an IPv6 implementor might extrapolate IPv4
> conventions and extract the /64 prefix from an assigned address
> (either SLAAC, DHCP or manual config), and add a route to the host
> table indicating that the prefix is on-link, regardless of whether
> the prefix is advertised as "on-link" in an RA.
FWIW, *BSDs do not have this "bug".
- the L and A bits of the RA prefix information option are clearly
separated. That is, creating an IPv6 address from a prefix
information option (with A bit on) doesn't make the kernel consider
the prefix on-link unless the L bit is also on.
- the WIDE-DHCPv6 client configures an IPv6 address with the prefix
length of 128. So, an IPv6 address created via DHCPv6 doesn't
impose the incorrect assumption of on-link'ness either.
If the system administrator manually configures an IPv6 address with a
prefix length smaller than 128, the kernel will assume that the
corresponding prefix is on-link. But I believe this should be
reasonable.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
