At Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:30:38 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But this means I couldn't accommodate the situation with two distinct > PIO prefixes in the RA either (/48 A=0 L=1, /64 A=1 L=0), because the > /48 L=1 prefix would still fool Y to believe 2001:db8:1111:cc00::2 were > on link. In this case A (or B) normally only advertises 2001:db8:1111::/64 with L=1 and A=1, and everything works just fine. The example I gave was to show that one of your suggested justification for the "hypothetical extension" doesn't work in some cases. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
