Erik, As I said in the presentation, let's forget the aggregation router. The host implementation bug we found is reproduced in an Ethernet LAN network too. An RA from the router was sent where RA was NOT signaling on-link and the host still behaved as on-link for traffic forwarding. The RA we used was an RA that did not send any PIO (Prefix Information Option). BTW, such a case (RA with no PIO) is not even covered by the definition of on- and off-link in section 2.1 of RFC 4861, especially since section 2.1 goes to so much copious details to describe on-link.
I was looking for a Turing machine to signal off-link. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:29 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Suresh, > > At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. Without a new > off-link flag your scenario will have to go with (a). But do note, > aggregation routers do not send Redirects. So the scenario below > cannot be even supported on aggregation routers. Which RFC defines an "aggregation router"? Erik > > Hemant > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:01 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
