JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
> and states as follows:
>
> All Global Unicast addresses other than those that start with binary
> 000 have a 64-bit interface ID field (i.e., n + m = 64),
> (this means the subnet prefix is 64).
Yes, but that RFC describes how the IPv6 address space is structured.
> And, as others pointed out, since the notion of "subnet" is not really
> clear, it's not surprising even if the implementor interprets a
> "subnet prefix" as on-link prefix.
>
> Along with the context of this draft, I believe an IPv6 address should
> be considered at the "minimum" level as described in RFC4291:
>
> At a minimum, a node may
> consider that unicast addresses (including its own) have no internal
> structure:
>
> | 128 bits |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | node address |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If this makes sense, I'd propose revising bullet #2 of Section 2 as
> follows:
>
> 2. The configuration of an IPv6 address, whether through IPv6
> stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862], DHCPv6
> [RFC3315], or manual configuration does not imply that any
> prefix is on- link. This means the address should initially be
> considered the one having no internal structure as shown in
> [RFC4291]. A host is explicitly told that prefixes or
> addresses are on-link through the means specified in [RFC4861].
I think your added sentence is good but it might be better to add it in
the introduction instead of in this bullet.
We could in addition say
The fact that Global Unicast addresses other than those that
start with binary 000 have a 64-bit interface ID field [RFC4291]
does not imply that the 64 bit prefix should be considered
on-link.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
