Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Erik,
I appreciate the quick reply. OK, here is an explanation with
non-colored text. The text snipped below for 6.3.4 is as follows to
please note first the text in double quotes:
[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."]
So far we are talking about the semantics of a single prefix information
option.
After the above text in the para the para says the following a little
later:
[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;]
And this talks about a particular destination address, looking at all of
the prefix list.
Thus you could rephrase the above sentence as
When sending a packet to a destination and there is no matching prefix
list entry, and no matching redirect entry, the packet is sent to a
default router.
I am saying the para immediately above contradicts the text in quotes
because the quoted text says off link MUST NOT be interpreted but then
later the same section says "send data to default router". I interpret
"sending data to default router" as signaling off-link behavior.
They are not in conflict, since the first is about a particular prefix
information option, and the second is about the system as a whole.
As for the R bit, what if the router has implemented ONLY RFC 4861. I
don't want to bring RFC 4775 into the discussion just yet.
I was merely trying to explain the motivation for L=0 being a no-op.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
