> Well, this is exactly the problem with host implementations we are > concerned with. The prefix list is being populated with a prefix when > the list should not be populated.
As an implementor IPv6 stack, I say that I had no problem understanding the L & A bits in prefix announcements. Just have to verify... You are aware about the "onlink assumption when no routers present" rule? Early RFC had some wording about that host must assume any address is onlink, when no routers are present (or was it "when no route for the destination is found, then try assuming it's onlink"). -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
