JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:20:14 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd think it simply breaks the standard, but I actually don't
understand the point of the question in the first place. Maybe you
want to explain what you're going to do with the additional 8bit
space, and then ask others what they think about it.
>>
Well, nothing, do nothing with the additional 8bit space. Make it 0,
that's it.
Then I don't think you can convince others (including myself) to
change the spec.
Well thank you for the advice anyways :-)
It doesn't use it for anything. It is there just in order to put a
56bit prefix in the RA and the other end to auto-configure an address ok.
Why should I put a /64 in the RA when that link is adminsitratively
assigned a /56.
If your goal is to use a /56 as an on-link prefix while using
stateless autoconfiguration, you can do it without changing the
standard by advertising:
- prefix P::/56 with L=1, A=0, and
- prefix P::/64 with L=0, A=1
if the receiving host is fully compliant with RFC4861 and 4862.
Excuse my ignorance but I don't see why putting two prefixes in the RA
when one is sufficient with A=1 and L=1.
I'll check that in implementation, thanks.
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
