You've answered the question :) So what's the problem? As you said, this is very unlikely but there is a solution for it below.
Hesham > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:01 AM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Off-link and on-link > > Hi Hesham/Dave/Erik, > I am not taking a stand on whether an explicit off-link > flag is necessary/useful or not, but I have encountered a > scenario where the existing algorithm specified in RFC4861 > does not work very well. Let's say a router wants to signal > to the clients that 2001:dead:beef::/48 is on-link except > for 2001:dead:beef:abcd::/64 that is off-link. How would it > go about describing this? I see two ways > > a) Advertise the /48 with L=0 and send redirects for all > addresses not on the /64 > b) Advertise the /48 with L=1 and the /64 with Q(the new > off-link flag)=0 > > I see b) as being more efficient than a) > > P.S: I do not think that this scenario is very likely, just possible. > > Cheers > Suresh > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
